[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001--Part 2
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina, Chairman
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ED PASTOR, Arizona
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Edward E. Lombard, Staff Assistant
________
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2001 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-823 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New JerseyCHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Alabama
Washington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California SAM FARR, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
----------
Thursday, January 27, 2000.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
HON. JEFF TRANDAHL, CLERK OF THE HOUSE
HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS
HON. JAY EAGEN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BOB FREY, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL
GERALDINE GENNETT, HOUSE COUNSEL
JOHN MILLER, LAW REVISION COUNSEL
POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
DR. JOHN F. EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
Mr. Taylor. The meeting will come to order. Today we begin
the hearings on the budget submissions of the various
legislative branch agencies in explaining their requests for
fiscal year 2001 appropriations. Each member has been given a
copy of the printed budget justifications. Also the staff has
prepared the customary subcommittee print, which contains the
budget and historical data on the legislative budget. The total
appropriations request that will be considered is $2.1 billion.
In addition, there are $41 million in offsetting receipts and
other collections and $1.1 billion in other revenues that we
collected by the legislative agencies. By tradition, the House
does not consider the budgets of the other body. The Senate
will submit and consider their own. The fiscal year 2001 budget
for the Senate totals some $624.7 million.
The committee will hear the justifications from each agency
in turn. At the conclusion of that process, the committee will
mark up the 2001 bill.
I am joined today by Congressman Hoyer, Mr. Pastor, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, will be with us in just a
few minutes.
I yield to you, Mr. Hoyer, if you have any statement.
Mr. Hoyer. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Taylor. When the ranking member gets here, perhaps if
he wishes he will make some statements.
We will now take up the budget request for the House of
Representatives and several joint items. The Chief
Administrative Officer, assisted by the Office of Finance, will
come forward and each will submit the budget. That material is
then included in the President's budget. The House budget
request totals $800.7 million, and that includes funds for the
operations of member offices, committees, the leadership, and
the administrative operations of the House.
In addition, the total joint items budget is $125.2
million. The joint items such as the Attending Physician, the
joint committees, and Capitol Police are shared with the
Senate. The other body will consider the fiscal year 2001
budget for Senate operations.
We want to welcome the officers of the House who are with
us today. The Honorable Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House,
Wilson Livingood and the Honorable Jay Eagen, Chief
Administrative Officer. We also have Janet Hale, Associate
Administrator of the Office of Finance, U.S. House of
Representatives, Bob Frey, acting Inspector General, Geraldine
Gennett, House Counsel, John Miller, the House Law Revision
Counsel and Pope Barrow, the Legislative Counsel. We expect Dr.
Eisold, the Attending Physician, to join us a little later. I
saw him----
Mr. Trandahl. He is here.
Mr. Hoyer. He will also join us a little later, too.
Mr. Taylor. We shook hands, and he asked how I felt. Mr.
Eagen has prepared the House budget for the President's budget
and will lead the formal presentation to the committee.
[Clerks note.--Ms. Hale has over 12 years of experience in
the federal government. She was the Associate Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, Assistant Secretary Department
of Transportation for Budget and held numerous positions at the
Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. She has also been the
Executive Vice President at the University of Pennsylvania and
a lobbyist regarding telecommunication issues. She has an
undergraduate degree from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio and
a graduate degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University.]
Opening Statement
Mr. Eagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Hoyer.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 request
for the House of Representatives totals $800,738,000. This
amount is based on statutory entitlements, actual spending
history, and consultation with the administrative offices of
the House. Overall, this budget provides funding for the Member
Representational Allowance, committees, leadership and the
legislative administrative offices. The fiscal year 2001
requests are detailed in your subcommittee print. And as you
noted, we have several other House officials here to answer any
questions that the committee may have today. We are now
available for any questions you may have.
Mr. Hoyer. That was a very in-depth presentation.
Mr. Taylor. As stated, we have all of the prepared
statements, and they have been given and they will be printed
in the record.
[The statements follow:]
FY 2000 PAY ADJUSTMENTS
Mr. Taylor. Has the House Administration Committee made any
adjustments in members' office allowances? If so, how much and
what is the increase for this fiscal year?
Mr. Eagen. The Committee on House Administration has not
made any policy changes in the Members' Representational
Allowances. They did advise an inflation adjustment to the MRA
that will increase it by approximately 3.5 percent or $14
million.
Mr. Taylor. How about salaries of the officers' staffs?
What adjustments have been made in the schedules there?
Mr. Eagen. In this case, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on
House Administration approved a 4.94 percent salary increase
for the employees of the officers of the House and the
Inspector General. The impact on the fiscal year 2001 budget we
are living under is $192,000. The impact on the fiscal year
2001 budget that we are considering today is $275,000.
CAO BUDGET INCREASE EXPLAINED
Mr. Taylor. The CAO budget is up by 6.9 million, about 12
percent. That is a large increase. Why is your budget up so
much?
Mr. Eagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a 12 percent
increase in comparison to fiscal year 2001. However, the CAO
budget has traditionally been a budget that has a series of
peaks and valleys. The peaks are caused in the odd number
years, in this case 2001, by two special conditions represented
in the CAO budget.
First of all, we are the budget that carries the transition
costs of the House of Representatives, meaning the office moves
and taking care of all of the expenses that relate to the new
Members coming and this fiscal year carries that congressional
transition.
Secondly, the CAO budget contains the net expenses of
equipment budget. This is the budget that pays for the
computers, Xerox machines, fax machines, equipment of Member
offices. The way that system works is that we buy the equipment
for the Members and then they have the option of paying for it
outright or through a 3-year plan. Should they use the 3-year
plan, obviously we are carrying that initial expense in our
budget, and then we would be repaid. So we operate in a deficit
one year and in a surplus the next year. The deficit is carried
through the net expenses of equipment account.
If you separate out those two items from the CAO budget,
you would find that we have actually a 3-percent increase in
the budget compared to last year. And if you compare this
budget to the more comparable year, which is 1999, we are
actually on a 2-percent increase over 1999.
CAO BUDGET REQUEST COMPARED TO PRIOR BUDGETS
Mr. Taylor. This is going to be a tighter budget year than
we might hope, and the peaks and valleys might turn into a
plane. And if that is the case, we would like for you to list
your priorities so we can go down those priorities. The House
computers' budget is $27 million. How does that budget compare
with recent budgets?
Mr. Eagen. It is a comparable budget, Mr. Chairman. There
has been some changes that have occurred in the HIR budget that
are significant. The first that you will note in the
submissions provided to the committee is that reimbursements,
which once were part of the House budget, are now going away.
Over the last several years, the House has been moving from a
situation where we hosted several outside agencies' computer
operations and then received reimbursement costs for those
operations. We are now down to a point where we expect only to
receive reimbursement for a hundred thousand dollars, where
compared to a few years ago we were receiving reimbursements of
about $3 million. That is the significant change in the budget
from previous years.
[Questions from Mr. Hoyer and responses follow:]
Question. In previous years, House Information Resources
(HIR) employed at least 40 technical service representatives
(TSR's) to assist Member offices with their computer needs.
Today HIR has only 26 TSR's, meaning that each TSR must service
more Member offices. Why has the number of TSR's been allowed
to drop by over one-third? What plans do you have, if any, to
ensure that the reduction in TSR's does not impair the
operation of Member offices? What would be the additional cost
in fiscal 2001 to hire a sufficient number of TSR's?
Response. In December 1997, a strategic assessment prepared
by Peat Marwick LLP recommended that a Call Center be
established as the first tier technical support for all Member
Offices, Committees, Leadership and Support offices. As a
result, a Call Center was established and staffed with twelve
TSR positions. In the first year of existence the Call Center
resolved 20,729 calls without having to dispatch a TSR. The
efficiency gained by quick resolution to Member and Committee
office technical problems allows the twenty-seven second tier
TSRs to respond to Member and Committee office problems
requiring on-site resolution, and to consult with offices in
the purchase of new equipment, and House System Integrator
issues.
The table below illustrates the five-year history of TSR's
used in the CAO organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 95 Sep 95 Sep 96 Sep 97 Sep 98 Sep 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call Center (Tier 1)............... ....... ....... ....... ....... 12 12 First Tier Support
for Members and
Committees.
TSRs (Tier 2)...................... 47 47 44 44 27 27 Direct Support to
Members and
Committees.
SESG (Tier 3)...................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 6 Indirect Support for
Members and
Committees (CAO).
------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 47 47 44 44 45 45 .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The salary for an entry level TSR is $36,916. The average
senior TSR salary is $65,838. Hiring six additional TSR's to
support the increase in technical support services required by
Members and House offices would cost approximately an
additional $350,000.
We continuously analyze the needs for Members and
Committees with respect to technical support representatives.
Should we find the level of support is not meeting Members and
Committee needs we will re-evaluate the TSR staffing.
Question. Further to my last question, it has been suggested that
House offices are generally having a difficult time retaining staff
with key technological expertise. Are you having this difficulty, and
if so, what steps are you taking to assure that you maintain the
technological expertise required to serve the Members and the House?
Response. Yes, the CAO does experience the same challenge that all
government and industry has in retaining technical staff. Technical
expertise is highly sought after by private and public organizations.
Some of the methods that have been implemented to promote continuous
improvement of retention, and hiring technically qualified personnel
are:
(a) The CAO has realigned job descriptions and salary levels of key
CAO information technology positions to ensure that the House can
compete with other Government and private industry IT firms in the
Washington DC area.
(b) The CAO Awards program was instituted to recognize individuals
who consistently demonstrate exceptional performance.
(c) The management team for HIR is focused on creating a work
environment that stimulates participation.
(d) Provide training for technical staff to keep abreast with
continuing changes in technology.
(e) A one-time, 1% ``IT factor'' increase was made to the HIR
FY2000 personnel budget to help in our ability to compete with the IT
industry.
(f) The Office of the CAO has also begun researching the concept of
pay banding similar to some select Federal Agencies. This may provide
managers with additional management flexibility and may also help the
CAO maintain a level of pay for technical positions that is more
comparable to other government agencies.
The CAO continues to monitor this retention issue closely and will
make recommendations to change the current process as appropriate.
Question. You are requesting $280,000 for HIR to review the
Correspondence Management Systems marketed to Members. At my staff's
suggestion, you are now reviewing a proposal by the Gartner group to
examine technology. When will that review be complete? Will the new
Members of the 107th Congress have the benefit of this work, to help
them optimize their computer equipment purchases?
Response. The Gartner Group is partnering with the Congressional
Management Foundation to provide a consulting service for Congressional
Offices in the selection of personal computers and correspondence
management systems. The project was requested jointly by the Committee
on House Administration and the Legislative appropriations
subcommittee. The statement of work is currently being revised and is
due February 21, 2000. Once the study begins, it is estimated to take
six to eight weeks to complete. It is anticipated that new Members of
the 107th Congress will have the benefit of this service, as the
statement of work provides for written reports that can be distributed
widely as well as briefings for Members and staff.
Question. Some CMS vendors have recently been suspended from their
ability to market products to Members. What assistance can the CAO
provide to assure that office systems marketed to Members will actually
perform as represented, and that Members will receive full value for
their office expenditures on such systems?
Response. All new Correspondence Management Systems will be
evaluated to ensure that systems actually perform according to the
marketed functionality. The HIR test lab is being configured to begin
testing in April 2000. The evaluation scripts have been prepared and
will be exercised using the Metamor CMS package in March 2000. The test
team will include not only HIR technical staff but also actual users
from Members' offices. A pilot of this approach has already been
conducted in late 1999 and was found to be effective.
Question. In the most recent financial audit of the House, the
auditors identified as a weakness that ``the House lacked sufficient
information with which to manage and maintain accountability over its
property and equipment.'' What have you done to address this weakness?
Response. The CAO has taken the following steps to address this
weakness:
Beginning in 1997, Office Systems Management (OSM) began performing
physical inventories of all House offices during a two year legislative
cycle. Prior to this time OSM would provide offices with a copy of
their inventory and would request that the office verify the
information. Prior to 1997 OSM would only perform physical inventories
of departing Member offices or changes of Chairs and Leadership
offices.
Media and Support Services (MSS) and House Information Resources
(HIR) completed by December 31, 1998, an inventory of all assets
meeting the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer's (CAO) new
capitalization threshold that became effective in 1998. In addition,
OSM completed by December 31, 1998, a physical inventory of all capital
items acquired under the previous capitalization threshold, as well as
all accountable property located in Washington, D.C. The General
Services Administration (GSA) performed the physical inventories of
district offices. (During the first cycle of physical inventories of
non-capital assets, GSA completed two thirds of all district
inventories) The Finance Office reviewed and analyzed on a monthly
basis all 1998 acquisitions to ensure items were correctly classified
as capital or non-capital items and assigned the proper Budget Object
Classifications (BOCs). MSS and HIR will continue to ensure property
and lease transactions are assigned the proper Budget Object Class
codes and capitalize assets as of the date the asset is placed in
service. This review process by MSS and HIR will continue until this
process is moved to the new Fixed Asset Inventory Management System.
The Office of Finance also continues to analyze monthly equipment
and lease transactions in the Federal Financial System to ensure
correct BOC and general ledger usage.
The contract award for a new fixed asset management system was
signed on August 10, 1998, by the CAO. Included in the contract were
requirements that ensured we would be able to track each of the items
outlined in audit recommendations. The new Fixed Assets and Inventory
Management system (FAIMS) will be capable of maintaining detailed
information with respect to property and equipment including: cost/
value information, asset description, acquisition date, useful life,
depreciation method, depreciation amount, and location. Summary
information on the acquisition cost and accumulated depreciation of
assets and inventory acquired by House organizations shall be
maintained in the Federal Financial System (FFS), the House's
accounting system.
Additionally, on October 7, 1998 the Committee on House
Administration approved a proposal to revise regulations governing what
equipment is tracked on an inventory. This change was made in
accordance with private industry and executive branch best practices,
as well the recommendation of the House Inspector General. Computer and
non-computer equipment that has an initial purchase price of $500.00 or
less is not placed on Member or committee office inventories. Internal
computer components are not placed on inventories. This change reduces
the inventories of Members and Committee by as much as two-thirds. In
addition, members will no longer be personally liable for loss of
equipment with a value of $500 or less.
Question. Further to the previous question, in that recent audit,
the auditors identified as a weakness that ``poor controls over
computers and data exposed the House to the risk of unauthorized
transactions, incorrect data, misuse of assets, and loss of data and
programs.'' What have you done to address this reported weakness?
Response. In prior audits, a number of internal control weaknesses
related to the House's Financial Management Systems were identified.
Actions have been initiated to address the recommendations related to
this weakness. As a result, HIR continues to aggressively address these
weaknesses and develop/implement initiatives, such as HIR's
reorganization plan, Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery plans,
and mainframe access control processes to improve the House's
information systems processing environment. These access controls are
monitored by the HIR Information Systems Security Office to protect the
data and networks of the House. In 1999, the CAO purchased and
implemented a Network Intrusion Detection system to further defend the
House network from attacks. In 1999, HIR began an aggressive Security
Awareness training program for all House staff. In the nineteen
sessions held during 1999, over 300 staff received the latest
information on the protection of Member office data and records. This
is now an ongoing training program offered by HIR training.
Question. Further, that same audit found as a weakness that ``the
House did not properly track the goods and services it ordered, made
erroneous duplicate payments, and paid vendors late.'' What is the
status of efforts to correct these problems, as the House is
experiencing with respect to the Skytel matter?
Response. The House has significantly improved its discipline to
ensure that goods and services that have been ordered are received and
accepted. Many major vendors of services who have recurring invoices
have been set up as automatic payments. The SkyTel billing dispute has
been resolved, and payments are current. To prevent a recurrence, the
House contract with Skytel has been modified to more clearly delineate
the process for ordering, delivering and paying for these services. The
CHA approved a proposal on February 9, 2000 to streamline the
acquisition and payment of pagers and related services. Effective April
3, 2000, House offices will begin ordering and paying for pagers and
related services directly from vendors. This will allow offices more
flexibility in paging service. It has become impractical to require
House offices to continue using the current central ordering and
payment process through Office Systems Management (OSM) for this
service. This is due, in part, to the increase in the number of pagers
used by House offices, the wide variety of service plans available and
the easy ability to upgrade pager units or service levels with minimal
effort. House offices will now be able to purchase or lease pagers and
related services directly from vendors and then voucher the purchase
costs and monthly service fees directly to the Office of Finance.
Further, we have taken a more proactive approach to resolving such
billing discrepancies long before they become major issues. There have
been several processing changes made to reduce the incidence of
duplicate payments. The first includes a software fix that will prevent
further processing of a payment that appears to be a duplicate based on
established parameters. A supervisory override will be allowed, but
only when research identifies the payment as non-duplicative and
changes have been made in the key descriptors to prevent its being
spotted as a potential duplicate in the future. Another change includes
new conventions for assigning an invoice number and invoice date when
these elements are not present on the documents forwarded by House
offices. This technique will be most helpful for travel and
subscriptions, two areas with relatively high duplicate payments. The
third change includes continued duplicate vendor record cleanup and
maintenance. This will eliminate the chance that duplicate payments are
undetected because they are paid to different vendor numbers. The
fourth change involves using software to prevent the use of erroneous
dates or date ranges (e.g., January 32, January 10, 2000-January 9,
2000, etc.). This will aid prevention and clean up of duplicates.
Finally, a database has been loaded with all transactions made during
1999. This is being used to identify and research potential duplicates
and recover actuals. Statistics from this review will be used to
recommend potential procedural changes to voucher processing.
Question. You're interested in replacing the House's furniture with
modular furniture. How much would it cost to furnish the House with
such furniture? Is modular furniture consistent with the House's
traditional decor? What is its useful life?
Response. Standard modular furniture workstation costs average
between $4,500 and $5,000 per workstation. These costs include standard
fabric and accessories. As an estimate, if all Members' DC offices were
converted to modular furniture, assuming an average of 9 staff per
office at a cost of $4,650 per workstation for 440 offices the cost
would be $18,414,000 which excludes Committees and various
administrative and support offices. Typical modular furniture is not
consistent with traditional House decor. Modular furniture can include
wood veneer panels more consistent with current House decor but raises
the cost between 20 to 25 percent. The useful life of modular furniture
varies with its application. House offices currently have modular
furniture in good condition that is over ten years old. Modular
furniture reconfigured and moved frequently would affect the useful
life depending on the care used during the move. Modular furniture
utilizes limited office space more efficiently than traditional
standard furniture by using vertical space. Modular furniture has the
ability to run all wiring internally through the system facilitating
access to telephone, computer and electrical wires. The CAO has
requested a furniture study be conducted to determine if modular
furniture would be feasible for use in the House environment.
Question. New Members often must wait considerable periods for
office furniture at the start of each congress. How large is you
inventory of furniture, and do you consider it adequate to meet
Member's needs?
Response. Currently, the Furniture Response Center has about
125,000 pieces of furniture either in stock or in offices. The
inventory is adequate to meet the needs of the House. There are enough
specific numbers of desks and casegood furniture, however from time to
time in-house inventory is depleted, and lead time to replace stocked
items are in consistent. FRC is identifying core (i.e., desk, chairs,
bookcase, file cabinets, lamps, sofa, tables and some miscellaneous
items), non-core and antique/unique furniture. A new process to order
core furniture items has been implemented. In factors re-order levels
based on request activity, storage space availability and manufacturers
delivery lead times. This process should facilitate quicker delivery
times.
During a transition, freshman Member offices are set up with a
standard compliment of furniture (i.e., desks, chairs, bookcase, file
cabinets, lamps, sofa, tables and some miscellaneous items) based on
room size and estimated staff size. Because of the dynamics of the
transition any wait incurred for furniture is usually in replacing an
item already in the office with a different color or reconditioned/
refinished piece.
Question. You're not asking for additional FTE's, yet your budget
request clearly indicates that you're contemplating reassigning current
employees to different tasks. Please provide a detailed description of
the function that staff will be moved from, and of the new functions
they will be shifted to instead.
Response. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer is not
requesting the reassignment of any of the current 601 authorized FTEs
via the submitted FY 2001 budget request. Each year when the Office of
the CAO develops the budget request, we begin with a strategic plan
which lays out a five year look at where the organization needs to head
to meet our current mandates and stakeholder expections. Included in
this strategic plan are five main Vision Elements which are:
1. Professional Renewal and Revitalization
2. Fluid Information Technology
3. Continuous Improvement of Products and Service
4. Disciplined Resource Management
5. Synergistic Organization
Each of the 601 authorized FTEs and the appropriate non-personnel
resources needed to support our operations and initiatives fits within
one of these main Vision Elements in our strategic plan. We are not
reassigning the resources as much as displaying them in categories we
use to manage our operations, share a common vision with our employees
and plan for the future beyond the next fiscal year alone. In this
budget request we are not proposing changing the FTEs currently
allotted to the various CAO operating units or to specific positions
within these operating units. This type of change is traditionally
coordinated through a reorganization proposal which is sent to the
Committee on House Administration for review and approval. In recent
years the Committee has approved re-organization proposals for House
Information Resources, the Office of Finance and the Office of
Procurement.
The approach of basing our budget on our five-year strategic plan
allows us to display our budget request in a variety of fashions
including by the five Vision Elements, by Budge Object Class Codes, or
by CAO Operating Units. The resources are not being shifted but rather
displayed by variety of categories.
The main benefit of this approach is that the budget is based on a
strategic plan which has considered the needs of the House
stakeholders, the mandates that drive our operations, and feedback from
House and staff surveys, among other things, rather than just taking
last year's budget request and adding inflationary increases.
Question. How much money, and how many FTE's, are or will be
devoted to ``First Call'' in Fiscal 1999 and 2000, and how much are you
requesting for First Call in fiscal 2001? Is First Call intended as a
problem-solving resource, or as a problem-referral service? If the
former, how much coordination is there between First Call and other
assistance provided to Members and staff (e.g., HIR's computer help
line), and how much leverage do First Call personnel have to ensure
that Members' problems are actually resolved? In either case, do First-
Call staff compile statistics concerning how many referrals are made
and problems are resolved?
Response. First Call is intended as a service coordination office,
to simplify the process of Members and staff obtaining services from
the CAO. It is however, only in its infancy, both in terms of services
covered and capabilities.
The following depicts the First Call FTE's and budgets (personnel &
non-personnel amounts for FY99-01):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Detailed employees Total first call
Fiscal year --------------------------------------------------------------
FTE Amount FTE Cost FTE Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................. 1 $110,145 3 $92,679 4 $202,824
2000............................................. 3 152,663 5 182,312 8 334,975
2001............................................. 3 211,921 5 201,026 8 412,947
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FY 1999 budget included funding for 1 FTE (Director); however 3
FTE's were detailed from other areas in the CAO to the office to assist
with its operations. The FY 2000 budget includes funding for 3 FTE
(Director and 2 Customer Service Specialists), however 5 additional
FTEs are detailed to First Call to handle the transition of work and
service functions from the FRC Service Coordinator department and
Passport and Notary services to First Call and an increase in call
volume. In FY 2001 request includes funding for 3 FTE (Director and 2
Customer Service Specialists), however 5 FTE are shown as detailed to
the office from other areas in the CAO to remain in support of its
growing functions.
First Call is intended to be a Call Center that handles various
issues and requests for the House Community. It is a resource/research
Center that provides assistance and guidance to Members and staff on
various issues. Currently, First Call resolves the majority of calls
received and the transfers are 11% of the total calls received.
First Call is designed to consolidate the contact points for CAO
services and provide a ``one stop shopping'' environment where people
can get multiple services done in one location and with only one phone
number. As First Call evolves it will continue to improve the services
that it provides. For instance, First Call currently performs random
callback surveys to determine if an office has received what was
promised. First Call plans to identify calls that initiate work
requests and work towards 100% call backs to these offices. A new
customer tracking system is now in use and plans are in the initial
stages to move towards an integrated customer tracking system that will
allow for further analysis of statistical data collected from requests
and calls received. Until that time, reports are available which
provide the number of calls received, type of request for service and
what was handled out of First Call or had to be transferred to other
departments for resolution.
First Call works not only with other CAO offices to provide answers
and assistance, they work with other House and non-House organizations
(i.e., State Department, Regional Passport Offices, Library of
Congress, etc.).
Question. At present, individual Member office allowances must bear
the costs, which can be substantial, or contracts for the maintenance
of computer hardware. Have you considered having the House contract
with a single vendor to maintain such equipment for all offices, and
how much money this approach might save?
Response. In 1995 the House considered a number of ways to approach
the maintenance of both computer and non-computer equipment. Two of the
alternatives were; to have either one or two vendors awarded a contract
to support all computer hardware and software or to allow House offices
to choose a vendor of their choice. At that time the House chose to
allow offices to make the decision. In 1998, as a result of a study by
a House task force comprised of Committee on House Administration, CAO
and Member offices, changes were made to the contracts with maintenance
providers to both clarify the requirements of the services providers
and to provide offices with a range of costs for support. The Vendor
Performance Improvement Study Project Team comprised of CAO and Member
offices is reviewing a wide range of computer support issues including,
at a minimum, looking at alternatives to the current multiple vendor
offerings, funding options and alternative payment plans. The planned
completion date for the task force findings to be provided to CHA is
August 15, 2000.
In addition to the task force, discussions are ongoing internally
and with the Gartner Group to evaluate industry best practices for
supporting and maintaining office equipment in the House.
Question. You've requested $3.065 million for a study to identify a
long-term solution to replacing the House's financial system, FFS,
which was installed in June 1996, less than four years ago. Why must
the FFS system be replaced so soon? Given the sum involved, are you
taking steps to ensure that the next system will last longer?
Response. The CAO has not requested $3.065 million for a study. The
FY 2000 budget includes $463,000 for a financial systems requirement
study estimated at $963,000 (the remaining $500,000 will come from the
DOI interagency agreement funding already in place). There is $706,000
requested in Fiscal Year 2001 for the financial replacement system. By
the time a replacement system is implemented (scheduled for November
2002), FFS will have been in use for over six years. Though the House
installed FFS in June 1996, the technology in the FFS system at that
time was already 14 years old. FFS technology does not operate in a
contemporary data base environment. FFS was implemented as an interim
system to meet extensive audit-recommendations. Because FFS utilizes
older technology, it does not integrate easily with other House systems
being installed today, it does not meet Member and Committee accounting
requirements, and does not provide an ad-hoc report generation
capability.
The House is following the approved Development Life Cycle
guidelines for major system acquisition to insure that the next system
lasts longer and meets the needs of the House. The House is performing
a requirements analysis phase with steps to define current and long
term House business processes along with financial functional
requirements and information system technical requirements. These
requirements will be used to define a ``target'' system that meets
House requirements. The target system requirements will be matched with
a Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) financial management product
capabilities that meet Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
(JFMIP) requirements. A recommendation will then be made as to whether
or not suitable products are available that will meet or could easily
be adapted to House requirements. If the House agrees with the
recommendation, a competitive procurement will be undertaken to acquire
the best solution to meet the House requirements.
Question. You're already $6 million into replacing the staff
payroll system. Why does this system need to be replaced? What do you
estimate it will cost?
Response. The current Payroll and Personnel & Benefits system (the
Financial Management System--FMS) is a twenty-plus year old system
based on mainframe technology and was custom developed by the House.
The current system is technologically very fragile, has limited
functionality, documentation is non-existent, and is supported by
extremely scarce human resources who have the expertise and historical
knowledge to operate and maintain the system. The Inspector General has
made several recommendations in a series of audit reports the current
system.
Redefined missions, amplified responsibilities, and the need for
more technologically current customer support have significantly
increased the role of the Office of Human Resources. However, the
present system cannot accommodate the necessary level of growth. The
environment of current system impedes all changes to the complex code
except those deemed absolutely necessary to accommodate changes in law
or directive. Numerous manual processes and excessive staff
intervention are required on a day-to-day basis, even to complete
``routine'' monthly payroll transactions, Additionally, there is
limited management reporting capability.
Other causes affecting the acquisition of a new system is the CAO's
extensive migration from mainframe-based technology to a client server
environment, as well as the goals to incorporate JFMIP (Joint Financial
Management Improvement Process) compliance into our Legislative
processes.
The estimate to acquire and implement a new HR/Payroll system at
the time the RFP was approved was a range of $8 million to $25 million.
These figures include hardware, software, customization as required,
integration, data conversion, implementation, and maintenance for three
years.
CONGRESSMAN EHLERS TASK FORCE DISCUSSION
Mr. Taylor. Has Mr. Ehlers' task force been consulted on
the request?
Mr. Eagen. That task force was created several years ago to
look at the operations of the House technology-wise
specifically. It issued a set of recommendations for the House,
about 15 in number. Of those 15, 14 have just about fully been
implemented. So the Ehlers task force work has fairly much been
completed, and we are now at a point where HIR and the CAO will
be submitting a follow on set of recommendations to the
Committee on House Administration for new technology
initiatives that we think are a natural complement to the
Ehlers report.
CLERK'S BUDGET INCREASE EXPLAINED
Mr. Taylor. I want to ask the Clerk, your budget is up
about 6.6 percent. Since that may be an increase beyond our
capacity, will you give us some priorities that you would
definitely like to have funded.
Mr. Trandahl. The budget increase mainly encompasses two
different factors. One is a personnel factor in terms of the
COLA increase that we are all anticipating; but secondly, we
are looking to increase our position FTE count by four in order
to help with historical and archiving issues in the Legislative
Resource Center. And second, we are looking at two technical
programs. One is the continuation of the document management
system and the other is to examine the replacement of the
legislative information system. Those are all priorities, and
they are all things that we recommend but definitely we will be
working with the subcommittee to identify which initiatives can
actually be funded in 2001.
PAGE DORM RELOCATION DISCUSSION
Mr. Taylor. What is the status of the page dorm relocation?
Have you and the architect worked out a satisfactory schedule?
Mr. Trandahl. Right after this meeting I am meeting with
the House Page Board to finalize the design proposed by the
architect. Once they sign off on the final design, the
architect is prepared to move forward with the actual planning
and construction process. We anticipate that it will take a
year and everyone seems satisfied with the schedule as
currently proposed.
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mr. Taylor. Your office has been working on a document
management system for several years. What are you trying to
accomplish and what progress has been made?
Mr. Trandahl. The document management system is the idea of
adding technology and bringing together multiple systems that
help create legislation. It takes legislation through the point
of origination all of the way to the point of printing and
consideration on the House Floor and connecting all of these
electronic steps together.
We are currently in the process of running a feasibility
study between the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Clerk's
office to see if it is viable. We have gone through a lot of
design and planning processes, and now are actually into this
deployment and testing stage for the first time.
We are right in midstream in the feasibility so we haven't
reached conclusions yet; and we are anxious to see the results,
the successes as well as where we have areas to improve. It is
a great step forward. After that is complete, we move to a
piloting stage and follow the SDLC process in terms of further
planning and development. A lot of success has been done this
year, and there is a lot of work ahead.
Mr. Taylor. How much has been appropriated to date for
document management and how much has been spent.
Mr. Trandahl. About $4.5 million has been appropriated. We
have actually only spent around $2 million. The appropriated
money that has gone unspent has been returned to the
reprogramming process and used on other joint House projects.
[Questions from Mr. Hoyer and responses follow:]
Question. The fall 1999 edition of the semi-annual House telephone
directory, which is compiled by your office, was rearranged, re-
formatted, and key information (e.g., federal-agency numbers) was
omitted. As a result, the directory's usefulness is greatly reduced.
Please tell me what was wrong with previous directories' format and
content, and who approved the changes, and provide a detailed
accounting of any savings resulting from the revisions. Also, please
provide a description of any plans you may have to make future editions
as useful as the previous editions were.
Response. Throughout the summer/fall of 1999, my office was
involved in the compilation and reformatting of the materials for the
1999 Fall House Telephone directory. Several suggestions and options
were raised relative to the information contained within the directory
and format in which the information could be best provided. These
options and suggestions were articulated in a letter from me to the
Committee on House Administration on August 24, 1999, and subsequently
the Fall 1999 telephone book was published and distributed in November.
While formatting changes were made and certain non-congressional
information deleted, I believe the core purpose of providing House and
Senate information and the publication's overall integrity and use was
maintained. As well, the cost of printing this document has remained
steady over the last several years. No cut backs have been made. My
office has received a variety of feedback and requests relative to the
current and future editions of this guide. As we near completion of the
new draft version to be distributed later this year, we will again be
seeking the review by the CHA to ensure that all suggestions are
considered. Should you have any thoughts regarding future formatting or
contents, I would be pleased to receive them.
Question. I note you request four more staff and $197,000 to
``reestablish the activities of the office of the Historian.'' Are you
proposing to re-establish the Historian's office as it existed before
1995, including hiring an Historian? If you do not plan to hire an
Historian, what employee(s) in your office will coordinate the
activities of the Historian's office? Will these staff work with the
Library of Congress on the history-of-the-House project recently
authorized by the congress?
Response. As contained in my FY2001 request, I am seeking funding
and four additional FTEs to increase staffing at the Legislative
Resource Center (LRC). This staffing would be focused on current
activities and responsibilities relative to history and archiving.
Appropriate position descriptions and titles for these positions have
been completed to ensure proper professional/educational qualifications
are met when hiring individuals into these positions. No position
specifically titled ``Historian'' has been created. This additional
staff (as currently done with existing resources) will be available to
assist with an array of historical projects, including the History of
the House should the CHA determine their role on this specific project
appropriate. The House Resolution authorizing the creation of this
publication provides that it be completed by the Library of Congress in
conjunction with CHA--not the Clerk.
Question. I note your request concerning the Legislative
Information Management System (LIMS). Is your LIMS work duplicating
work performed by the Chief Administrative Officer at House Information
Resources (HIR)? Will you have your LIMS proposal reviewed and
validated by HIR? If House Information Resources is in fact the House's
information-technology resource, why isn't HIR performing the LIMS work
and all other information-technology work for the Clerk's office?
Response. As contained in my FY2001 request, I am seeking funding
for a feasibility study on the replacement of the LIMS. This request is
part of a continued coordinated effort between the CAO and myself
relative to LIMS. We are working as a team with HIR/CAO as we consider
the possible options for the replacement of LIMS and are following the
House Systems Development Life Cycle Policy.
Although the Clerk and HIR work closely on several technical
projects and issues, the Clerk is a client of HIR--much like a
committee or Member office--and HIR is performing the information
technology support for the Office of the Clerk.
Question. Have you begun the process of inventorying the House's
fine arts and historical artifacts for the House fine arts board? If
so, what is the status of this task, when might it be completed, and
how many employees are devoted to the task?
Response. Last year in meeting with the Curator and the Architect
of the Capitol, I formally requested the creation of a task force to
assist with the inventory of historical furnishings in the Capitol.
This inventory would compliment current inventories held by the Curator
(AoC) relative to House artwork, certain gifts, fixtures and
sculptures.
Currently, teams are continuing to photograph and catalog (and
research the history) of these items. This is an on-going project and
is expected to continue throughout the calendar year. With the
exception of a policy relative to the recovery of items removed from
the U.S. Capitol during earlier Congresses, this current effort
fulfills the goals of the Fine Arts Board.
Two AOC employees have been assigned to this project. Other AOC
employees including the Curator, Architectural Historian, Interior
Designers and Photographers will be involved on an as need bases.
Question. What plans do you have, if any, to begin a transition to
electronic filing of lobby- and financial-disclosure forms, as the
Senate is exploring? Wouldn't electronic filing of these reports result
in savings to the House, and to those who are required to file them?
Response. Since the enactment of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the
Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate have administered the Act with a
high degree of consistency and cooperation. At present, we are
investigating technology to assist in filing and processing--including
electronic filing. However, we are compelled to ensure that filing
improvements do not conflict with or mitigate our compliance
responsibilities and related enforcement provisions under the Act.
As we continue to pursue advances in technology, we are focused on
issues of digital signature, authenticity and internal processing. We
are working jointly to find workable and legally satisfiable solutions
to these issues in an effort to adopt a full fledged electronic filing
program. It would be premature to assume that an electronic filing
system would provide measurable cost savings. Should we adopt
electronic filing in the House and Senate, the goal is to offer a cost-
effective and convenient system. However, such a system has yet to be
fully designed and tested.
SERGEANT AT ARMS BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Taylor. Bill Livingood is the Sergeant at Arms and for
the last year has had a very heavy challenge. It is good to see
you again this year.
Mr. Livingood. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. We will take up the Capitol Police budget
separately and we will see you again then, but we appreciate
the frugality that you can make in any reductions. That is
always a challenge. Is there any comment that you would like to
make?
Mr. Livingood. Most of our increase in the 3 percent has to
do with salary, COLAs, merit increases, and those areas. I can
look at small areas again. I have very little in nonpersonnel
costs, but I can certainly relook at that again and come back
to the committee.
GENERAL DISCUSSION ON ATTENDING PHYSICIAN'S OFFICE
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Eisold, has this flu caused any increase in
your budget?
Dr. Eisold. No.
Mr. Taylor. Is there anything that you would like to add or
say?
Dr. Eisold. I am delighted to continue to provide services,
and I am delighted to be here today.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. The physician's office does
an excellent job both with the members as well as the emergency
care that they offer in the capitol and we appreciate that very
much.
Mr. Peterson. I would just like to give a testimonial. This
is my fourth year here. Last year in late summer I had an
infection in my shoulder and I went over to the physician's
office for treatment. Dr. Lee asked me whether I had an annual
physical recently? I said I have not had one since I have been
in Congress. He said, could I schedule you one and I said sure.
They scheduled a physical. I had no strong symptoms, but he
thought I should have a cardiac workup. I ended up having open
heart surgery for an artery which was 95 to 98 percent plugged.
My cardiologist in Pittsburgh said I was a walking heart
attack. So I owe my life to our physician's office and Dr. Lee.
I just want to say that today. We all take our health for
granted. I was not sick, but I was close to being dead. I want
to thank him. He called my family physician and said I think he
needs a cardiac workup. I don't know what he saw, but he
thought I needed it and it saved my life.
Dr. Eisold. Thank you very much. We certainly urge people
to come down and do that.
Mr. Peterson. I chaired Health in the Senate for 10 years,
and I preached prevention and annual physicals. But when I came
here, I stopped having them. Again, I wanted to share my
thanks.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Last year we approved several
reprogrammings and transfers, for the record. Please insert at
this point all requests and dispositions of transfers and
reprogrammings made last year.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. I would like to ask our ranking member, Mr.
Pastor, if he has any comment or questions.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mr. Pastor. In doing last year's bill, we did it on a
bipartisan manner and obviously tried to get a bill that
accommodated the leadership and their desires, so I look
forward to working with you again. Last year, Jeff, there was a
little bit of debate when we talked about your budget and
document reproduction, how quick, how soon. Where are we on
that?
Mr. Trandahl. That is part of the document management
system, and that is us trying to complete internally in the
House electronic versions of documents in order for them to be
produced, whether it is at GPO or in-house printing, and also
made available on the Web. It is progressing. I think GPO is
happy and satisfied with the progress that we are making in
terms of what we send to them for production and printing. As
well, we are anxiously weeding out the paper process internal
to the House and replacing it with electronic when possible.
Mr. Pastor. I can understand maybe you want to explain at
the end of the session there is a big crunch and this year I
heard a lot of moaning and groaning on the Floor about some of
the appropriations bills that were getting passed, that they
were not available.
Mr. Trandahl. That comes to the physical ability. In the
Clerk's office and the GPO, we are staffed at a certain level.
When you have so many bills and text and the evolution of text
changing all of the way through the process, we are all
struggling to get it complete, current and make thousands of
paper copies. The way that we were sort of able to get ahead of
the curve; we were able to get electronic copies posted well in
advance of paper so long before consideration people have the
ability to see the language and see the numbers and the text
and everything else.
I know you heard a lot of moaning and groaning; I think it
was less than you have heard previously.
Mr. Pastor. I don't know if it was moaning and groaning
because they didn't get a project in.
Mr. Trandahl. All of the above.
Mr. Pastor. Sometimes I guess it is frustrating for some
members, especially those members who are not part of the
committee, in trying to figure out where they are at on a
particular bill and sometimes--it is not available for them to
see or it is in draft form and they don't know----
Mr. Trandahl. In this committee, your committee has the
largest burden in terms of legislation every year, and you
usually have the most difficult issues that are not resolved
until the very end of the session.
So we have a very good relationship in the Clerk's
organization and your clerks when sharing information once the
members reach a conclusion. You would be surprised how quickly
and efficiently things move through the compilation and
printing process, but paper production does take time.
Mr. Pastor. I just wondered what we can do to improve the
situation so members are able to----
Mr. Trandahl. And I am with you. I think the improvement is
in bringing in good technology so we can get electronic copies;
but wherever it is printed, if we have clean electronic copy,
it speeds the processing incredibly.
Mr. Pastor. I also want to echo that the physician's office
not only deals with members but I think they are able to deal
with situations when we have tourists in the capitol and I am
glad that he has a very competent staff and does a good job;
and so I congratulate him and wish him the best. That's all,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Wamp.
IMPROVED HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Wamp. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, as we begin this
second session, I think it is important for us to kind of take
stock in what we are doing well. I was encouraged by Mr.
Hoyer's comments in an article that I read in the Washington
Post and other outlets across the country about how much better
the House is managed today than it has been in the past, and
that the reforms we have worked on in a bipartisan basis are
paying off. The House is better run because of these changes,
but it is not the politicians that make it happen. It is our
staff and it is you and your staff that make it work. I just
want to thank you for biting the bullet sometimes and smiling
when you did not feel like it and doing what you needed to do,
because the bottom line is that these reforms are improving the
accountability and the faith that the American people have in
this institution. So let us just continue with these
improvements as we go down the stretch in a politically
volatile year.
Mr. Pastor, I think that, as a committee we should all go
out of our way to make this effort as bipartisan as possible. I
thank you, Steny Hoyer, for staying on this subcommittee with
your years of experience, because it very much helps the
continuity of this subcommittee. I stayed on this subcommittee
for a second term because I enjoy it and I think it funds the
good guys. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. I echo that. I think all members of this
committee have worked in the first year to make it a successful
effort, and I am sure they will also do so during this second
year. Mr. Hoyer?
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me address Zach's
comment. I have long felt that the ministerial side of our
operation ought to run as efficiently and as non-partisan as we
can make it run. I did make that comment; Zach is correct. I
think we started that progress in the beginning of the 1990s,
but certainly strides have been taken since 1995, and I think
we ought to continue that.
DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION
To that extent I think our ranking member's comments in
terms of how we deal with this responsibility on a bipartisan
basis is a lot easier because we are not dealing with policy as
much as we are dealing with the performance, health and
integrity of an institution. I think the audit that we had was
a good audit. I am going to ask a question about that of the
IG. But in that context, I would like to ask the three of you a
question. This is a sensitive question. I don't want to put the
three of you in a box, but it does deal with the bipartisanship
and the openness of this institution. That question is, will
you answer directly to minority members or staff questions put
to you concerning the operations of your office?
Mr. Trandahl. A simple answer, yes.
Mr. Hoyer. I want you to think about that, and I think
Jay--his eyes are lighting up. If we are going to be open and
we ask a direct question, we ought to get a direct answer and
that is the question that I am asking, Jeff. I appreciate your
saying yes, but I think all three of you know what I mean in
terms of whether or not you have to check with other sources
before you give us answers. Sometimes that is causing us
problems, as you know, and gives rise to a concern that perhaps
it isn't as open as we would like it to be, and as bipartisan
as we would like it to be.
Mr. Trandahl. I think we are all here to be constructive
and share information. I can attest for myself and I feel
comfortable in answering for them; we work very hard and are
very open, all three of us as people, and as managers. I
understand the frustration, and I know where you are coming
from in terms of folks asking us questions; and we are very
interested in getting the information to all interested groups.
How it is done, I know it is an issue with some people. I don't
think that it is an issue of us trying to keep information; I
think it is more a matter of how do we most effectively meet
with everyone and get everyone information.
Mr. Hoyer. Jay, do you have a comment?
Mr. Eagen. Jeff has hit the nail on the head. It is not the
lack of willingness on my part or Jeff or Bill's part. There
seems to be an issue with regard to the forum. If there is
frustration, I would say there is frustration here as well. I
am open to solutions.
Mr. Hoyer. Bill.
Mr. Livingood. In my area, particularly because it dwells
mostly in security that I have been open on both sides,
bipartisan with the House Administration, the Appropriations
Committee and the committees that I report to, and I have never
been stopped from saying exactly what I thought or answering
questions.
Mr. Hoyer. I don't want my question to be misinterpreted as
saying that any one of the three of you has not been exactly in
that mode. But I think it is important that there be a sense of
open communication between both sides as we work in a
bipartisan fashion on ministerial issues. Obviously both sides
want to discuss things in confidence; but in ministerial
matters, both sides need to have access to information that
they need to make decisions.
JANUARY 2000 COLA DECISION
Let me make a comment, Mr. Chairman. I was very pleased and
you mentioned that we did the 4.94 percent, Mr. Chairman, for
all of our employees. We gave 4.94 percent in the civilian
sector, and that is adjusted by the locality pay adjustment.
Washington area employees are subject to the cost of living
here and the differential was given. I appreciate Mr. Thomas'
actions on that, and I think we did the right thing for our
employees and hopefully will continue to do that. I think 3.7
is the adjustment the administration is talking about
recommending; and whatever adjustments we had, Mr. Chairman, we
may want to make some adjustments later on for that, but I
congratulate all those who have taken what I thought was an
appropriate action.
DISCUSSION ON SYNERGISTIC MANAGEMENT
Let me ask one more question, if I can, of the Chief
Administrative Officer.
``Synergist Management Vision,'' can you explain that for
me? It sounds good and I am for it.
Mr. Eagen. Synergy is the simple concept that the whole is
greater than the sum of the parts, and the intent is to try to
build an organization in the CAO, particularly with management
but for all employees, where people are able to work together
as a team and solve problems and provide services. What does it
mean in a practical sense? First, it means planning, having a
strategic plan and laying out goals and objectives for the next
4 or 5 years to look a couple of steps down the road. Second,
it means communication. We are a large organization with about
570 employees in 7 different buildings who sometimes find
problems in talking to one another. So it is having effective
communication programs so we can work together, not just within
CAO, but with Jeff's office or the Architect. Oftentimes we
have to work across boundaries to provide those services. It is
an attempt to have improved management.
Mr. Hoyer. The $313,000 and four extra people, I take it,
will be involved in working on those issues that you have just
raised?
Mr. Eagen. I'm sorry?
Mr. Hoyer. As I understand it, there is $313,000 and four
additional FTEs dedicated to the development of this----
Mr. Eagen. It is not four additional FTEs. They are already
existing. What we have done is organize the CAO's budget under
five different categories. We try to directly align our
resources with dollars and people, and that is what that is
trying to show.
Mr. Hoyer. Is that essentially existing dollars?
Mr. Eagen. Yes. There is a strategic planner in my office,
for example.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Granger, any questions?
Ms. Granger. No questions.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen.
[A question from Mr. Hoyer and response follows:]
Question. Since you rendered a clean audit for the House
last year, do you believe you need the same level of resources
going forward?
Response. I believe the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
should receive the level of resources requested in my Fiscal
Year 2001 budget request. The 1998 financial statement audit
concluded that the financial statements were ``presented
fairly, in all material aspects'' but identified five remaining
weaknesses in House financial reporting. In order for the House
to continue to receive a clean opinion much work is still
needed to follow up on the remaining weaknesses and to improve
overall House management and administration.
To this end, we are currently developing an audit universe
of House and joint entities to more effectively use our
resources to meet the needs of the House. Our proposed 2000
Annual Audit Plan and Perpetual Inventory of Proposed Audits
presents a three year strategic plan accounting for 48 audits--
requiring 9,850 audit staff days of effort. This plan, in order
to reflect the improvements in House financial reporting, will
emphasize those area where the House is still in need of
improvement or has had little prior review.
Relative to the performance and financial audits,
assessments are needed in the areas of controls over equipment
maintenance, contract provided services, contract provided
services, physical security, and financial management
processes. More audit emphasis will also be placed on the
Architect of the Capitol's House-related activities. For
information systems audits, assessments are needed in the areas
of network security, information system acquisition and
implementation, and application controls. These audits will
ensure that House systems provide the desired functionality, as
well as the required data integrity, confidentiality, and
availability. In particular, these reviews will include the
financial, procurement, inventory, and personnel systems. Other
information systems audits will assess general information
technology management in areas such as systems integration,
quality assurance, and configuration management.
These audits will be performed by both OIG staff and
contract audit resources. Relative to contract audit resources,
the OIG entered into a new master contract in mid-1999. This
new contract provides for a wider choice of service providers,
but at higher service rates than the expiring contract. Any
reduction in OIG contract audit resources, coupled with higher
service rates, would reduce the amount of contract services the
OIG may acquire--negatively impacting our ability to
effectively implement the OIG annual Audit Plan.
In summary, even though the House received a clean opinion
on the 1998 financial statements, areas with high risk, weak
internal controls, or little prior review, still remain. These
reasons, coupled with the anticipated increase in contractor
costs, justify the OIG's Fiscal Year 2001 budget request.
Thursday, January 27, 2000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
LAURA CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DIGITAL LIBRARY
RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN
TERESA SMITH, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES
LINDA WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND
PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
KATHY A. WILLIAMS, BUDGET OFFICER
GENERAL FLETCHER M. LAMKIN, DEAN, ACADEMIC BOARD OF WEST POINT
Mr. Taylor. We will now take up the Library of Congress
budget. I want to welcome Dr. James Billington, the Librarian
of Congress. And we also want to welcome Retired General Donald
L. Scott, the Deputy Librarian of Congress. The 2001 budget of
the Library assumes total funds available for the $622.4
million from a variety of sources, including appropriated
funds, receipts, gift, trust fund and revolving funds and the
reimbursable program. The appropriations request before the
committee today is $461.7 million. That is an increase over
last year. It includes $33.6 million in offsetting collections.
The Library is requesting funding for 272 additional
employees, but plans to reduce 80 FTEs elsewhere so the net
employment increase would be 192. Dr. Billington, do you want
to introduce your staff? We have circulated statements, and we
can go into questions.
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of my
colleagues, and I really do want to endorse the quality and
dedication of this staff. The only new member that has not yet
been presented to the committee is Teresa Smith, director of
Human Resource Services, who is giving fresh impetus and
vitality to that activity in the Library. I am prepared since I
have submitted a fairly lengthy statement to just move directly
here to your questions.
[The information follows:]
Teresa A. Smith, Director for Human Resources, the Library of Congress
Teresa A. Smith is a Senior Level manager at the Library of
Congress where she serves as Director for Human Resources. Ms. Smith is
the principal advisor to Library management on human resources and
manages a comprehensive human resources program for a staff of 4,300
employees. As Chairperson of the HR21 Steering Committee, Ms. Smith
directs a five-year Librarywide effort to ensure that we build,
develop, manage, and maintain a flexible work force to meet the
challenges of the 21st century. Under Ms. Smith's leadership, the
Library issued a Human Resources Strategic Plan to guide the
transformation effort and make certain that human resources activities
clearly align with agency mission accomplishments.
Ms. Smith has twenty-seven years of expertise in federal human
resources. She has worked in field, regional, and central office
locations and has extensive experience in managing human resources
programs, ranging from first-line supervision of personnel staff
functions to her current agency-level leadership and advisory role.
Immediately prior to assuming her current duties at the Library,
Ms. Smith served as Human Resources Director for the Health Care
Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). There, she managed a headquarters staff of over 100 employees
engaged in providing a full range of human resources services to 4,000
HHS employees in Baltimore and ten regional centers. While at HHS, Ms.
Smith streamlined and reengineered human resources services,
activities, and programs to deliver more value to the customer.
Ms. Smith has a bachelor of arts degree from Indiana University and
a master of science degree from Southern Illinois University. She has
received certification in facilitation, team building, and
organizational development.
DIGITAL FUTURES INITIATIVE
Mr. Taylor. By far the largest increase in your budget is
for the digital futures initiative, it is about $21 million and
133 FTEs. Can you explain the project and the components of the
proposed expenditure?
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think I
should begin by saying that in this bicentennial year anyone
who is a custodian of this institution ought to begin by
thanking this committee, you, Mr. Chairman, members of this
committee and subcommittee and Congresses past and present for
being the single greatest Library patron of all time. No royal
family, no Medicis, no one has ever created anything like this
oldest federal cultural institution in America which has become
the largest repository of knowledge and creativity in human
history, and more recently the leading provider of high-quality
free historical and educational material in the revolutionary
new world of the Internet. It is that which your question
addresses.
As you have already indicated, the Library brings before
you this year a budget that contains probably the single most
important request which is derived from the vision and strategy
for this new digital era, one that will secure the
infrastructure and the personnel to sustain and maximize what
is really a quite unique potential that it has to serve the
Congress and the Nation. Thanks to the Congress's farseeing
support, the Library's pioneering 5-year National Digital
Library Program, which finishes this year, has been a stunning
success.
Just a few weeks ago it capped a long number of awards by
winning the prestigious Global Information Infrastructure Award
for Education. We have now developed, particularly over this
past year with hard work of many parts of the Library, a
digital futures plan that will systematically begin building an
all together new kind of 21st century library for all Americans
wherever they are--the National On-line Library.
The Internet is creating a profound and fundamental shift
in the way knowledge is stored and communicated, even the way
that it is generated. In 1998, the Department of Commerce found
that 29 percent of real economic growth in the United States
was attributable to information technologies, and that number
will go way up when the figures for this past year are
computed. Projections show, moreover, that by the year 2003, 80
percent of all business transactions will be conducted over the
Internet. Close to one hundred million American households are
already connected to the Internet.
Further, worldwide exponential growth seems inevitable; not
just the workplace, but our daily lives are being altered far
more rapidly than our capacity even to understand what the
implications are for society. What is already clear is that
this new communications era offers the Congress's library
extraordinary opportunities to provide new and cost-effective
benefits to the Congress and the Nation. Almost all libraries,
and an estimated 89 percent of our K through 12 public schools,
are now connected to the Internet. Most have direct Internet
access into the classroom. Demand continues to grow for the
kind of high-quality interesting, even inspirational, material
that the Library of Congress Website is almost alone in
providing the Nation free of charge through the Internet.
The commercial world is preoccupied with marketing and
entertainment, which is fine; but we are helping to bridge the
gap between information haves and have-nots by providing a
vehicle for improving K through 12 education in America. The
Library also has an immediate national responsibility to
rapidly develop plans and pilots for preserving and making
accessible the rising flood of works that are created
elsewhere, born digital, and are presently available only in
highly-impermanent electronic forms.
So our main request, Mr. Chairman, in this budget is for an
increase of $21.3 million in order to systematically
incorporate digital materials into the Library's historic
traditional enduring mission, which is to acquire and preserve
useful content, to provide free access to the Congress and the
public, and to sustain the backbone of infrastructure that
makes access to content possible.
We need and are asking for $11 million for the backbone of
an electronic service that has exploded from 20,000 electronic
transactions a day in 1995 to 4 million a day now. We are
asking for $7.6 million for additional domestic and
international content and $2.6 million for outreach services to
maximize access nationally. Now we realize that this represents
a significant increase, but the Library has already severely
strained its human and material infrastructure in this past
decade to test and determine what these needs really are. These
are, I stress, the core needs of any library. They simply must
be met for this new type of material if the Library is to
provide relevant service in the years ahead and these three
different areas are interdependent. There is little point of
having content without access and no possibility of sustaining
either without an infrastructure, without a backbone.
Of course there is no realistic possibility that we can
continue our present level of services, let alone maximize our
unique and extraordinary service potential for the Nation by
further diverting resources from traditional services based on
books, periodicals, and other artifactual materials which will
be equally inescapable for the foreseeable future. The amount
of print material is increasing worldwide and diversifying in
its outlet. We cannot neglect that format. Libraries, Mr.
Chairman, are our link in the human chain that connects what
happened yesterday with what might take place tomorrow.
I ask the committee's support so that the Congress's
Library may have the basic material and human resources to
sustain the world leadership role that it has established, that
Congress has enabled us to establish in the digital age and to
be able to modernize our services both to the Congress and to
all Americans wherever they are in their local community.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Have you made analysis of the
outyear costs for building the digital collections, the cost of
distribution and the additional infrastructure that you need
for the Library and other institutions?
Dr. Billington. Yes. The Library has completed a very
detailed plan for the digital future, and I will refer to
General Scott to explain it.
I would like to say that program managers from all parts of
the Library have put together integrated programs that will
enable us to improve service to all of the Congress, to the
Nation's libraries and the public in a cost-effective and, we
think, coherent manner. I must first of all thank this
committee for the support of the Integrated Library System,
which you have permitted us to install and which we did under
budget and ahead of schedule last year. That is a platform on
which the future possibilities we are going to be sketching
here are based, and it is something on which we would not be
able to contemplate without the special support that you gave
us last year.
But specifically, in the next 5 years we plan in this
program to add 70 additional memory modules to the 5 million
items already either on-line or in the pipeline, and
international content from 10 other countries, design a program
for collecting and preserving digital-only materials in all
formats and build a state-of-the-art digital repository,
provide navigational tools beginning with geographical mapping
services for the Congress to deliver content and services
rapidly and in modern forms, and continue on-line educational
outreach for teachers and librarians. The end result, we
believe, will be an outstanding national asset to meet the
growing needs of our citizens for information access and
navigation into high-quality content and services.
And so, with that general statement, let me pass the
microphone to my very distinguished and hard working colleague,
General Scott, who is responsible for pulling much of this plan
together and for making the vision that we developed into
something that is more than just a ``vision.''
[The information follows:]
General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. It is my pleasure to present for the record the
Library's 5-year plan that lays out exactly what we want to
accomplish with the digital futures initiative.
The purpose of this plan is to enable the Nation's oldest
cultural institution to collect, store, preserve, and
distribute information in an electronic format. As Dr.
Billington said, our plan is the result of a multiyear effort
by the staff throughout the Library, and it does chart the
course for our digital future. The plan describes in detail the
new digital environment that we face, the role of the Library
in that environment, our vision for serving the Congress and
the Nation through that medium, and the components necessary to
realize this vision.
Throughout the plan, we are asking the Congress to fund
three integrated and interdependent components, the technology
backbone or infrastructure component, the content component,
and the access services component. Each of the components is
described in detail in the plan along with cost data which
supports the request and what the services will be used for.
Also, the plan lays out the outcomes that we expect as a result
of the expended resources, our planning assumptions, and
outyear estimates through fiscal year 2005. The resource
requirements grow from $21.3 million in 2001 to $26.4 million
in 2005. This increase is primarily due to a continued
investment in our technology backbone or in our infrastructure.
The born digital part of this plan is needed to ensure that we
have funding to help us implement pilots in 2001. The purpose
of the pilots is to help us understand how this dynamic and
constantly evolving Internet communication medium is going to
work.
The pilots will include exploration of partnerships with
the private sector and other institutions throughout the world.
Our desired outcome in the born digital arena is to capture and
ensure permanent access to digital materials in the most
economic manner.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this plan has been in the making
for more than a year. It details the critical components needed
to make the Congress and the Nation's library capable of
collecting, preserving, distributing, and storing digital
information to present and future generations of America, which
of course, is the Library's mission. Thank you, sir, for the
opportunity to present this plan, and we do request your
approval.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, the Internet age provides many
opportunities to make the vast resources of the Library of
Congress a success. How does the Library make the digital
library successful in local communities?
AMERICAN MEMORY COLLECTION
Dr. Billington. The main guiding theme of our bicentennial
is Gifts to the Nation. This Library is Congress' creation and
gift to the nation. Our basic gift, our millennium gift to the
Nation, is the millions of items in our American Memory digital
collection which we are making available in local communities
across the Nation in libraries, in schools, but increasingly in
homes as well.
We have also developed a network of librarians and teachers
across the country who are introducing these materials in their
classrooms and libraries. We have conducted numerous training
sessions and annual summer institutes using these materials and
our technology. People all over the country are putting their
discussions as well as the results of their discussions on-line
so there is a rich educational resource formed not by us but by
people working locally in the classroom and sharing it on-line
with the Nation.
Numerous collaborations have been undertaken with the
private sector. We have one with Jones Intercable in
Alexandria, VA, and we had another one with Bell Atlantic in
Union City, NJ. They are using our materials and somebody
else's technology. We also have two special pilot
collaborations designed to work in depth with K through 12
educators. They are incorporating the Library's primary source
material into school curriculums to develop the best methods
for making educational on-line content useful for students. The
Library has established a regional collaboration project called
Joining Hands Across America with a rural educational research
consortium in North Carolina. This project, which has just
started, is designed to develop a training program which will
be useful to teachers in all American communities.
We are also available free of charge to anyone who has
access to the Internet, particularly public and school
libraries across the country.
AMERICA'S STORY
Finally, I should say that we are going to unveil a new
Website on our birthday, 200th birthday, the 24th of April,
which will be called America's Story. It will be composed of
many stories of America. Also, it will be given the free pro
bono benefit of widespread advertising by the Advertising
Council, which has taken it on as a major project. This will
result in a great deal of public attention being drawn
throughout the country to this remarkable facility and this
remarkable educational aid. We are talking about up to
something like $30 million of free advertising a year for 3 to
5 years into the future. So, that is something I am very proud
to say we have not spent a great deal of money on in the
Library. Instead, we have been concentrating on the substance
of what we are doing. We now have the happy opportunity to have
it much better known at no expense to the Appropriations
process or indeed to the Library, although we will be required
to put much more effort in and to plan for a future in which
the use will be even greater than it is now.
NATIONAL ON-LINE LIBRARY
Mr. Taylor. An important part of the Library's National
Digital Library Pilot Program is the use of cooperative
projects with other institutions to provide digital access to
historically significant materials. What type of cooperative
projects are you considering as part of the Library's National
On-line Library?
Dr. Billington. Mr. Chairman, our vision for this National
On-line Library includes a number of cooperative projects with
both domestic and foreign partners, and includes both
historical materials that we and other institutions will
generate, as well as born digital materials. We would like to
continue the type of projects made possible through the gift
from the Ameritech Corporation to the Library which helped 36
libraries, archives, and other repositories across the country
to digitize their historical and Americana collections and add
them to the Library's Website. We also provided technical and
substantive critiques of a total of 300 proposals. As a result,
many more institutions got the benefit of a technical and
substantive analysis of what they could do to digitize.
We want to continue this collaborative work with other
large and small repositories across America. We would like to
produce standards, as we did at the beginning of the past
century with cataloging, to produce dependable and uniform
protocols.
We are working with 17 other major research institutions
through the Digital Library Federation to address technical
standards. We are partners with the National Science Foundation
and its digital library research program, and we have several
partnerships with donors and foundations for the support of the
K through 12 educational programs which I have already
discussed. We would also like to add an international dimension
to build on the Meetings of the Frontiers Project which was
approved by the Congress 2 years ago and is now starting to
become available on-line bilingually in both English and
Russian. The next such project will be with Spain which is the
repository of much of the early history of America,
particularly the American Southwest and Florida. We plan to
unveil a prototype, drawing on already digitized collections,
to the King and Queen of Spain when they visit the Library next
month. Others include the Vatican, and perhaps the national
library of Italy, which also includes fascinating early
materials on the discovery of America.
We see internationally over the next few years becoming the
hub of a growing international network that will give a rich
new dimension to the educational enterprise that we are
undertaking. In the long run, Mr. Chairman, the Library will
contribute to improving America's place in the increasingly
competitive global marketplace. These collaborations will add
domestic and international content and help address the tough
technical issues associated with digital content.
WEST POINT COLLABORATION
I would like to introduce, General Lamkin, who is the dean
of the academic board of West Point, to describe how his
distinguished and important national institution is already
using the Library's National Digital Library content. West
Point might work with us to generate similar valuable content
in the future.
General Lamkin. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for this opportunity to respond to your question and
to talk about the potential for an exciting partnership between
the Library of Congress and the United States Military Academy.
We already have several connections with the Library of
Congress. As a member of Fedlink, we have a subscription to a
number of services that the Library provides, and we have
linked the Library of Congress home page to our home page so
that cadets and faculty can readily ascribe to the Library and
take advantage of that link.
We have also placed on our academic home page a link to the
National Digital Library on West Point to permit cadets and
faculty members quick and easy access to items in the Library
of Congress's America Memory Collection. The history department
has made good use of these materials in the classroom and for
homework assignments.
For several months, we have been exploring the potential
for further collaborative arrangements with the Library of
Congress. We are currently discussing 2 potential projects
which will demonstrate the usefulness of digitized primary
sources delivered via the Internet. These projects have a
potential to expand and extend the Library of Congress's
services to the American people. Quite simply, we would like to
establish faster connections between the Library of Congress
and West Point so that our students and faculty may have real-
time access to materials in the library for their teaching and
research.
Furthermore, we would like to make available to the Library
of Congress and the rest of the world our rare collections
which document the history of West Point and its graduates.
Here is specifically what I mean.
In the first case, West Point would like to have real-time
access to the digital material available to the Library of
Congress, which would include the National Digital Library, the
Country Study handbooks and digitized map collections. We could
use these resources inside and outside the classroom to enhance
instruction. We are a wired campus. Every classroom is
computerized with projectors and links to the Internet that
enhance the normal oral instruction that goes on in a
classroom. With a rapid link to the Library, we could
illustrate a point with a wonderful part of their collections
from the Library, and, as a student asks a question, move to
the next picture or link to help supplement the material and
bring alive the rich American history that is in the library.
We can only do that with a fast link. If you do not have
the fast link, all of this information is going through a soda
straw. It takes 5 or 10 minutes to download some of this
wonderful material instead of having instantaneous access. The
first thing that we really need is the high-speed link.
Second, we would like to make available to the Library of
Congress and the American people the history of the United
States Military Academy. Our unique holdings bring to life a
rich American history, but in many cases those wonderful
documents are tattered and old and difficult to access. An
example would be our USMA historical holdings on Ulysses S.
Grant. They complement the holdings in the wonderful
collections here in the Library of Congress. We have the
official records in our archives pertaining to Cadet Ulysses S.
Grant and his various post-graduate contacts with the academy.
Our special collection also includes a variety of Grant
materials, including original correspondence, rare
publications, and even collective photographs and engravings.
Through the use of technology, we would have the ability to
make the combined holdings of the two institutions available to
a wider public. West Point would like to partner with the
Library of Congress in securing private funds for such a pilot
collaborative effort. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this chance
to speak.
[The information follows:]
Brig. Gen. Fletcher M. Lamkin, Jr., Dean of the Academic Board, U.S.
Military Academy
Brigadier General Fletcher M. Lamkin, Jr., was born in Lakehurst,
New Jersey, on April 9, 1942. After graduating from the U.S. Military
Academy in 1964, he was commissioned a second lieutenant and awarded a
Bachelor of Science degree.
BG Lamkin also holds a Master of Science degree in Engineering from
the University of California at Berkeley and a doctorate in Philosophy
from the University of Washington. His military education includes
completion of the Airborne and Ranger Schools, the Field Artillery
Officer's Advanced Course, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College, and the Naval War College.
Prior to BG Lamkin's appointment as tenth Dean of the Academic
Board, he had served at the U.S. Military Academy from June 1971 to
1974 as an instructor and assistant professors for the department of
Mechanics. In 1987, he returned to the Academy as a permanent associate
professor in the department of Engineering. In 1989, he was selected as
professor and deputy head of the department of Civil Mechanical
Engineering in 1992. From June 1993 to June 1994, he was Vice Dean of
the Academic Board and then returned to the position of professor and
head of the department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering in June 1994
until his appointment as Dean in May 1995.
BG Lamkin has held a variety of important command and staff
positions throughout his years of military service. He was served as
Battery Executive Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, and Battery
Commander in the 7th Battalion, 11th Field Artillery, Republic of South
Vietnam from 1966 to 1967. He commanded the 1st Special Training
Company at Ft. Gordon, Georgia, from 1967 to 1968 and was Battalion
Operations Officer for the 1st Battalion, 38th Field Artillery in Korea
from 1975 to 1976. Positions he held while at Ft. Lewis, Washington
from 1976 to 1980 were Battalion Executive Officer of the 1st
Battalion, 84th Field Artillery Division, Training Officer, and Deputy
Operations Officer for the 9th Infantry Division. In 1980 he was the
Inspections Team Chief of the Officer of the Inspector General, U.S.
Army Europe and from 1981 to 1983 he commanded the 4th Battalion, 77th
Field Artillery in Babenhausen, Germany.
BG Lamkin's awards and decorations include the Bronze Star,
Meritorious Service Medal (5 awards), Air Medal (5 awards), Army
Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal as well as numerous service
awards. He earned the honor of Distinguished Graduate and winner of the
J.W. Mittendorf Award for Best Student Research at the U.S. Naval War
College in 1987.
He and his wife Shari have three daughters: Lori, a graduate of the
University of Washington who works for Microsoft; Lyndsi, a graduate of
the University of Arizona now flying F-18s for the Navy; and Lyssa, who
is studying Occupational Therapy at Quinnipiac College.
Mr. Taylor. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate your
comments, and certainly with the moral support that the Library
is giving with the international collections. As mentioned,
Russia and Spain and hopefully others could be helpful as a
source through the Library of Congress. So we appreciate your
comments.
In the individual area, General Scott, there is a bilateral
work effort in these activities. How will the Library and other
institutions share this workload that you are talking about?
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a brief
comment about the collaboration that the Library of Congress
has done with the 36 other libraries throughout this country.
They share our data, and we share their data. I would like to
ask Laura Campbell, Director of our National Digital Library,
to give you just a little bit more details. She would be
instrumental in helping us initiate a collaboration project
with West Point.
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
Ms. Campbell. As General Scott mentioned, we have 36
collaborations now--most of them are collaborations on unique
content, really special items; for instance, fabulous
photographs of the early American West from Denver Public
Library and 35 other fabulous collections that people couldn't
see without these collaborations. They don't have the computing
power, the digitizing money to do this. We actually raised
money to make those collaborations possible. We hope in the
next 5 years, by working with institutions like West Point, we
can take the very richest, the most educationally valuable
material and together, do this in a cost-effective manner. This
not only gets the content out there, but it forces us to learn
a whole lot about technologies and standards where the Library
of Congress, as the Nation's library has always been a leader.
We can share that knowledge and be cost-effective with
libraries not only here, but around the world, and actually
communicate and distribute content and knowledge in a networked
environment.
One institution alone doesn't have to do all this work, but
somebody needs to lead the way. We would very much welcome
content and technical collaborations with organizations like
the distinguished West Point.
Dr. Billington. Internationally, I might add, Mr. Chairman,
as you are well aware, that we have signed general agreements
and have begun collaborative conversations with the Library
accumulated by Columbus's son. It is available, and we hope to
develop similar arrangements with the Archives of the Indies
and the National Library of Spain.
Also, we have just recently signed general agreements to
explore sharing and collaborating with the two largest
repositories in Russia, of the history of the Russian expansion
east, which parallels in so many interesting ways the American
expansion west and two frontiers meeting just north of San
Francisco. They have materials on Alaska and early North
American history, just as we have materials on Siberia and the
Russian frontier.
These are the first of the collaborations. We have had
exploratory requests from a number of other major foreign
repositories, and I think in this process of sharing the
digital world is networking. It involves collaboration because
it is taking things which have been confined in one place and
sharing them everywhere. I think it is very flattering to the
Congress, as the creator and sustainers of this institution,
that we are getting a great deal of interest from foreign
governments, as well as from foreign repositories. We have
developed--again I would stress this time with private money--
only the initial pilot, thanks to Ameritech, a series of
collaborations; not only collaborations that now exist with 36
institutions, but laying the groundwork for collaborative
networking with all of the rich repositories in America to
benefit from the experience that we not only have ourselves,
but are sharing over the Internet.
It is a very exciting prospect, and your question about
sharing opens up a horizon that we see is very much in the
future. The relatively modest increase we presently project in
the 5-year plan that General Scott has given to you is based on
the hope and the reasonable prospect that there is going to be
a lot of collaborative activity.
I cannot stress the extent to which other repositories
depend upon us, just as the whole library system is basically
sustained, in which we give a roughly $268 million annual
subsidy by our assuming the central burden of cataloging. We
are setting a standard, providing a platform on which others
can build as well as ourselves.
Mr. Taylor. I want to certainly commend you for your
foresight in this area, and before we go into other questions,
I would just point out as a student of history how fruitful all
the work you have been doing would be for our public and
private schools and our universities, both K through 12, and
our universities, because having the access digitally, the
resources you are bringing on with the agreements with Russia,
Spain, and others, it is amazing the impact it can have both in
increasing the content as well as the credibility of the
materials. So I think it is a wonderful effort, and I certainly
support it without question.
I would recollect a moment ago you made a good
presentation. I appreciated you mentioned that there is no
other--you said there was institutions like West Point. I
think, General Lamkin, there is no institution like West Point.
There are similar institutions. We will have the record show
that.
FORT MEADE STORAGE FACILITY
Dr. Billington, there are five appropriation accounts that
provide the funds for the Library of Congress. The
Congressional Research Service, $75 million; salaries, $292
million; Copyright, $38 million; Books for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped, $49 million; Furniture and Furnishings,
$6 million. I know you plan to move into the remote storage
facility--I believe it is known as Module 1--at Fort Meade
later on this year. To what extent will this begin to alleviate
your storage problems in the Jefferson and Adams Buildings?
Dr. Billington. It would have a very major impact, and
perhaps I should refer this to General Scott, who has been
working very closely with our plans in this area.
General Scott. The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is that it
is going to help a great deal. The opening of Fort Meade Module
Number 1 will have a major impact in alleviating the shelving
backlog we now have in the stacks of the Jefferson and the
Adams Buildings. We have about 50,000 books that are currently
stored on the floor in those buildings. And so, if we get the
funding we are requesting for the short-term, staff can shift
the collections that remain on Capitol Hill, freeing up
critical shelf space.
I realize I am going into great detail here, but the short
answer is that if we get the funding to make the shift, then
these books will be filed closer to the reading room where they
are--they can be used and will free up a considerable space for
us in both of those buildings.
Mr. Taylor. There are funds to begin activities for Module
2. I think it is a little over $707,000. That construction
won't begin for at least a year or more. Why do we need to
begin committing resources so soon? How much for Module 2?
Dr. Billington. Let me just say, the major problem with
Module 2 is that it deals with special collections which have
to be treated and formatted in a different way.
CULPEPER AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER
I just interject at this point before General Scott follows
up on Module 2 to thank the committee particularly for its
support of our National Audiovisual Conservation Center in
Culpeper, Virginia. It is going to take care of the Library's
massive audiovisual collections and is being supported by
additional government matching funds provided in the fiscal
2000 bill and by your support Mr. Chairman. This committee's
support was a critical signal to the private donor supporting
the acquisition of Culpeper. He is now proposing a much better
way to renovate and quickly bring this facility on-line, in
fact, 3 years earlier than our original plan.
We asked the committee to also support the Architect of the
Capitol's budget request of $5 million for the second
installment of the matching government share and the new
proposal, which will make the facility available not only 3
years earlier, but also will reduce overall costs by $6.5
million. The donor will assume the overwhelming bulk of the
funding which will accelerate its completion. This continued
support--and this does not appear in our budget, but in budget
of the Architect of the Capitol--is essential at this crucial
time and on the schedule, which we have included in our 5-year
projection for you.
I want to thank this committee very much for this. This
facility is going to bring together a wonderful audiovisual
record of America in the 20th century out of a large number of
diverse places where they are not always stored under the best
conditions. They will now be assembled in a much more useful
manner for the Congress and for the Nation. I want to thank
you.
And now on Module 2, I turn the floor over to General
Scott.
General Scott. Mr. Chairman, Module 2 will primarily house
the Library's nonbook, paper-based collections: manuscripts,
prints, maps, sheet music.
The reason we need to get started early is that there are
three time-consuming tasks which have to be accomplished in
order to have the materials ready to move into Module 2. The
three tasks are first, Many of the collections planned for
Module 2 are in the special collections and require
conservation analysis and treatment before being moved to Fort
Meade. Second, we need to place those materials in standardized
containers to stack them properly in Module Number 2. And,
third, the containers must be barcoded and entered into the
collection control database so that they can be retrieved and
controlled for inventory security purposes. In summary, we have
to get started early to make sure that when the module is open
all the materials are properly prepared, and housed.
Mr. Taylor. Can you outline the security project--
collections of the security project, and will this complete the
collections security plan?
COLLECTIONS SECURITY PLAN
Dr. Billington. This will go a long way. Again, I will
refer to General Scott for the details. I would just say there
are really two parts to this. One is full and permanent funding
for the police that was authorized, in supplemental for the
physical security of the Capitol perimeter last year. Secondly,
we need is to address the problem that was left out of the
supplemental, and which has been a continuing preoccupation for
the Library and for the various audits ever since the original
GAO Audit, in 1991. That is collection security as
distinguished from physical security.
Creating an integrated library system, a pioneering effort
of the library world which the Congress and this committee and
the appropriations committees of both Houses supported, has
made item--level tracking possible. This is a kind of inventory
control that has never previously been physically feasible. We
are beginning to take advantage of this enormously wonderful
asset that the Congress has enabled us to create.
Security is a very important and fundamental thing. This
won't solve all the problems, but it will solve the police
problem, and it will get us well on the way to developing the
kind of security for the Library's collections, which is one of
our continuing concerns that has not yet really been addressed
in the previous security supplemental measure.
General Scott. Just to follow up and add to Dr.
Billington's explanation, our approved security plan, has four
types of control that need to be implemented This includes:
bibliographic, inventory, preservation and physical security
controls. This request will significantly improve inventory
control by addressing the weaknesses that were identified in
the GAO audit. However, this will not complete the entire
collection security plan. We still have some more work to do in
that regard, but this will be a big help to fulfilling the
requirements of gaining inventory control over the collections.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, do you have a question?
Mr. Pastor. Remembering that GAO report, there were
instances where people were walking into the Library and
walking out with books and pages from books, and it was quite
critical in that sense. When you say you have gone a long way
in solving the problem of the collection, how do you define
going a long way? Are we 10 percent, 20 percent? Where are we?
General Scott. I would say we are about 75 percent towards
completing the security plan. I would like to ask Ken Lopez,
our Director of Security, to come and give you those kind of
details.
Mr. Pastor. I am not so much concerned about the police,
but the inventory where people were walking out with the books
or pieces of the books. That is my question.
Dr. Billington. Before we get into as much detail as you
would like, and we will certainly submit a full accounting of
this for the record, let me just say we have gone a long way in
dealing with that. This committee has supported us in
establishing perimeter controls, closing the stacks to all but
essential Library personnel and those serving congressional
needs. We have created an interior and exterior perimeter
security, so a great deal has been done. There are cameras. We
have established clear sight lines in, reading rooms. A lot of
things have been done, and Mr. Lopez, our Director of Security,
will inventory them.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. Please submit for the record, a full accounting of the
collections security project.
Response. Through its focus on collections security, the Library
has closed all fifteen recommendations made by the General Accounting
Office in its 1995 audit of the collections.
The October 1997 Collection Security Plan, approved by the
Congress, focused on the physical security controls used to protect the
collections (preservation, bibliographic and inventory controls, the
other controls used by the Library to protect the collections, are
being integrated into the same overall collections security framework).
Physical security of the collections includes electronic tagging of
books and installation of theft detection devices at building exits;
secured receiving, in-process working, and holding areas (video
surveillance, intrusion detection and access control systems); reader
registration reading room security (cameras, guards, and personal
belongings restrictions); and secure vaults or cages for high risk
collections. At the end of fiscal 2000 the Library will have completed
75 percent of the Plan's physical security requirements. The remaining
physical security controls will be implemented by the end of fiscal
2004, if Congress supports the fiscal 2001-2004 requests in this area
from both the Library and Architect of the Capitol.
Bibliographic and Inventory control capabilities were greatly
enhanced through the acquisition and implementation of the Integrated
Library System (ILS). In fiscal 2001, the Library is requesting funding
to begin to capitalize on this excellent tool for effective inventory
control and tracking. Areas the Library has identified as critical for
inventory control are: acquisitions tracking (tracking monographs from
the point of receipt by immediately tagging them and creating item
records); transit teams to ensure the safe transit and effective
tracking of each item as it moves through the processing cycle; serials
claiming (ensuring that the Library acquires in a timely manner that
which it expects to receive and has paid for); and physical inventory
of the collections, the cornerstone of effective inventory control.
In conjunction with the inventory program, the Library has also
initiated the development of measurements to track the Library's
progress in reducing the risk of theft and mutilation to the
collections. The Library has initiated random sampling studies starting
in the special collections. This project is producing credible
baselines of theft, mutilation, and preservation concerns. Measurements
derived from the ILS tracking capabilities and random sampling projects
will yield quantitative figures on the extent of theft and mutilation
over time.
The Library is on track to complete the arrearage project on the
modified schedule approved by Congress last year. The Library will
complete print materials by 2004 and 80% (the original target) of
special collections materials by 2007.
Preservation controls ensure that the collection will be available
for future generations. In fiscal 2001, the Library is requesting
funding to continue the highly successful deacidification program, and
to prepare special collections items for the safe transfer to Ft.
Meade, and to make the maximum use of Ft. Meade storage space.
Providing access to the Library's collections inevitably puts them
at risk. However the collections exist to be used and Library
management accepts the responsibility of mitigating risk to the
collections at the same time that it fulfills its mission of service to
Congress and the nation.
Dr. Billington. The question of collections security also
involves full and accurate knowledge of item location--from the
time something enters the Library, to where it is being used,
and by whom. Having integrated systems, which we have now been
able to create, provides an added level of item level control
which the Library has never had before.
Mr. Lopez, I turn it over to you.
Mr. Pastor. Just one question. The inventory you have, how
many books or collections do we have and how many of those are
in the system that makes them more secure?
Mr. Lopez. There are close to 119 million items in the
inventory.
Dr. Billington. Excuse me. On that question, maybe Mr.
Tabb, Associate Librarian for Library Services should respond.
If we are talking about the nature of the collections and the
size of the collections, Mr. Tabb might be useful, but go
ahead, and perhaps Mr. Tabb will add as well.
Mr. Lopez. As I was indicating----
Mr. Pastor. Sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. We have a number of new controls
that are in place since we implemented this plan in 1997. We
know that we are having success in improving our collection
security as evidenced by the incidents that we are detecting
such as attempted removals and the discovery of damaged pages.
Now, a lot of the damaged pages have been discovered as we have
increased our marking and tagging program. For instance, in
1999, we had 35 reported incidents of attempted removals and
mutilation. Each incident was investigated. Many of those
attempted removals were determined to be inadvertent, but it
shows us that the systems and the controls we have in place
are, in fact, working.
Mr. Pastor. And using the 35 that you detected, how many
more do you think you didn't detect? I am sure you have a
ballpark figure.
Mr. Lopez. We have to go on reported information. But those
numbers have dropped down, too, so I believe our controls are
working very effectively.
Dr. Billington. Using item-level control will enable us to
answer that question with great precision in the future, to
keep better track. I think it is good, but we must be as
precise and comprehensive as possible.
Mr. Pastor. As I recall the GAO report, that was one of the
biggest problems that you had, people in there checking out
books or whatever the process.
Mr. Tabb. The open stack access.
Mr. Pastor. And we were losing books, and it wasn't just
books, you were losing pages of books, and, in fact, there was
much to-do about what is the role of the Library of Congress;
are we going to move it to Kansas or wherever they wanted to
move it, as I recall. We said, no, we have confidence in the
Library of Congress.
What I am trying to do is get a feeling of how we have
progressed since 1997. We are now almost 3 years away from
that. Where are we in terms of making sure that the Library is
100 percent secure, or even that if is realistic? Maybe it is
only 95 percent, but where are we, because 3 years have gone
by, and how many books have we lost, and how many pages have
been taken beyond the 35 that have been reported or detected? I
guess that is my question. How does this budget help you or
hurt you?
Mr. Lopez. The inventory control system that we are asking
for is going to play a large part in tracking items. One of the
past difficulties in early detection of losses was not having a
valid inventory baseline. This inventory System will give us
that capability. In the meantime, we are doing such things as
random sampling, and statistical methods in determining in
specific collections the amounts of loss that we may be
incurring.
Mr. Pastor. I guess I initially asked the question of the
millions of items, how many are already inventory, and how many
are part of the system?
Mr. Taylor. He is asking a question I would share--there is
two questions: One, what is the extent of the inventory being
studied now; and then the next question is about the
protection, when it will be 100 percent protected, and I guess
it is----
Mr. Tabb. We have 119 million items, but until we got the
integrated library system, which we implemented last October,
we didn't have one system where all our records could be
brought together so we could have the kind of control we need.
One of the areas which is still a gap for which we are
requesting funding this year is the ability to get barcodes on
more items the minute they come into the Library. This was one
of the things that was mentioned in the GAO report.
Mr. Pastor. As you receive something, it gets barcoded.
Mr. Tabb. Exactly, and use that barcode all the way through
the system, using the integrated library system. When it comes
through the door of the Library of Congress, the first thing to
do is get a barcode on it so that you know it is Library of
Congress property, and use that barcode for all the functions
that occur downstream. That is one of our major requests.
Mr. Pastor. How many have we done since October to date,
and how long do you anticipate barcoding the collection you
already have in place; not the new ones coming in, but the ones
you already have as part of the inventory?
Mr. Tabb. All of the electronic bibliographic records that
we have, of what we own at the Library, were put in in October.
We are still not at the point where we can put on the barcodes
and enter new records as items are coming in as quickly as we
need to because we don't have the funds to take full advantage
of the ILS.
Mr. Taylor. Are you saying 119 million items have been
barcoded or identified in such a way that you can----
Mr. Tabb. No. We still have more marking and tagging to do.
Mr. Taylor. How can we help? Is there any way we can
facilitate that?
Mr. Tabb. The biggest help would be to fund the positions
that we requested here so that we are capitalizing on the ILS.
It is about 45 positions, which would help us with the item
tracking, with the moving of items, with securing control at
the point they entered the Library and getting them on the
shelf so that we can start a new inventory. Back in the 1970s,
the Congress us gave money for a hand--manual-type inventory,
which was almost completely finished in 1997. At that point we
decided to stop where we were because we knew we would need to
inventory again. So now we will have an ability to use the ILS
when we go back and do a complete new inventory using the
automated system. That new inventory will also help us a great
deal to establish even more firmly the kind of baseline we need
because we will know whether something was there in 1990, but
does not appear--in 2001--we will have a much better handle on
this whole inventory situation.
But with the volume of collections we have, there is no way
to inventory on an annual basis. We had to have this ILS system
in place before we could truly get the kind of inventory
control that is required.
Mr. Pastor. Given your budget request, now, what timeline
do you have to get the security in place that would make us as
secure as we can get?
Mr. Lopez. Well, I think that we would follow up on the
implementation of the inventory control process. In the
meantime, we are doing a lot of things outside the inventory
control process, but this piece is important.
Mr. Pastor. I understand the importance. I just want to
know a timeline. Three years from now? Four years from now?
Tomorrow?
Mr. Lopez. We are projecting that within 4 years we will
have implemented the plan as it exists right now, but the plan
will expand as we add inventory and preservation controls. So
the plan is somewhat dynamic in those control areas that we
consider part of collection security. You may be referring to
perhaps the physical security controls.
Mr. Pastor. What I am referring to, when would you get to
the point where no book is taken? Once somebody who is in
there, whoever uses the book, and/or if that person turns it
back in to the librarian, that there is a way of detecting that
nothing is missing?
Mr. Tabb. We think we are already there in large part
because of the measures we have taken. But, in fact, the
reqeuest here is for an 8-year program to complete the new
inventory. This is the level we are requesting. So that is the
point at which we would know how successful we have been on the
inventory control issue.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Peterson, do you have a question?
Mr. Peterson. In talking about the technical items here, I
want to mention what I think is most important, and that is our
brain trust. I have an equal background in business of about 20
years, 20 something years in State government, and this is my
fourth year in Congress. At State level I was always critical
that we were the training grounds; bringing people in, training
them, and watching them go out to work for everybody else. I
always tried to get some people to stay because of their
institutional memory.
I was reading this document. It talks about the turnover of
Congress, and that staff tenure is also undergoing a
significant decline, according to the Congressional Management
Foundation. In 1988, House staffers averaged 2.7 years of
experience in their current positions. I am bucking that trend
because I have--my chief of staff was here with Moses--only one
person that is under that mean of 2.7 years of experience in
the job they are doing, with the issues they are dealing with.
But I purposely designed my staff that way because I think
people are the most important asset we have. Also it appears a
figure that is even worse, an even more dramatic indication of
the acceleration in turnover, is the increased proportion of
House staff with less than 1 year's experience. It has gone
from 8 percent in 1996 to 29 percent in 1998, and God knows
where it is today. That is a scary figure when a third of the
staff of Congress has been here less than a year. Look around
the halls, it is obvious.
I understand that we can't govern what Congress does, or
what individual Members do. That is their choice. However, I am
fighting the trend by trying to have experienced people work
for me, people who that know what they are doing. Are CRS, and
the Library of Congress competing for the best and brightest
young people coming out today, with the economy as hot as it is
and so many business opportunities out there? There are young
people today leaving college that have multitudes of offers,
but are we getting some of the best and brightest to come in
here and build the brain trust that serves Congress?
Recruitment Efforts
Dr. Billington. Well, I will call on Director of the
Congressional Research Service Dan Mulhollan to talk about the
aggressive efforts that CRS is making to do just that. One of
the most important achievements of the National Digital Library
experiment has been to assemble a group of relatively young
people to work on this who have come together, worked together,
and are part of a growing network who have really produced
something quite remarkable. One of the most important reasons
that we come to you with this request for an increase in FTEs
is, if we are not able to retain these people, they will move
on. They could already command much greater salaries. They have
the idealism and the dedication to this corporate enterprise
which is their creation. I think we can hold on to most of them
despite the fact that we cannot compete with salaries anything
like what most of them could command in the private sector.
Moreover, if we don't keep these people, they are not
replaceable, because what they bring is not only the skill and
dedication that so many people do who work for the government,
but they also have a knowledge not only of the technology, but
of the Library, of how you get the champagne out of the bottle
into the six-pack, if you would like. How do you use these
physically enormous collections, and put the expertise of the
curators who live with them onto the Web.
Keeping the brain trusts that we have, and the dedication
of the staff that we have is at the heart of why we are making
this significant request for your support. If we don't have it,
we will lose many of them. Considering the fact that we can't
compete with the private sector, I think the dedication and the
quality of the people we have--and thanks to the excellent work
being done by a new Director of Human Resources, we are
accelerating the hiring process so that we can bring new people
in more rapidly.
I think the prospects are good, and the reason they are
good is because this committee and the Congress has supported
the Library.
Let me just add, because there does seem to be a certain
amount of turnover in the staffing available of the Congress,
the pooled talent concentrated in CRS, has increased. They
represent a cumulative body not only of expertise, but of
experience knowing what the Congress wants and how to deliver.
This is one of my prime concerns, and another reason for our
succession planning, because we are facing an extraordinary
loss of people unless the intangibles of what is in their
brain--that can't be manufactured in any academic institution
or any other context except in the real-life context of serving
the Congress--unless that intangible is passed on in the
apprentice/master relationship. We are going to lose the brain
trust we already have, or we are not going to be able to
attract the quality of people that we have. It is a sort of
contagion of dedication that develops among those who are
dedicated to this task, and it is very important that it be
extended.
This committee has been very good in supporting CRS last
year, but now it also has to be extended to the curators in
Library Services on whom those analysts very much depend. I
will turn it over to the CRS Director Mulhollan.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you. You got it right, Mr. Peterson.
There is a real challenge for the public service, to attract
the best and brightest of the country to come to work for the
Congress, for you, and that is what CRS is making every effort
to do. They can get higher salaries elsewhere.
There was a survey by a colleague in political science,
Paul Light, last year, of a thousand public administration
graduates. It found that graduates are twice as likely to go to
the private nonprofit sector rather than to government. And so
that is the challenge we face.
Also, faculties create cynicism with regard to the Congress
itself. The best thing we have is our graduate recruit and law
recruit programs, because of your support. We are extremely
grateful for your support to get basically the best the country
can offer to come to work with you as shared staff, to help
write the country's laws. That still can compel people, to get
them to work for the Congress. That is the challenge we face.
That is why this budget is so important. I am extremely
grateful for this committee's support in the past and ask for
the support again for the funding for 15 positions, including
funding that was lost because of the budget cap, to continue
this effort.
In my submission to the record that you quoted, I would
like to note examples of three of the graduate recruits that
have just come up. They are terrific young people, I would like
to submit a little brief description.
I really am encouraged about what was found when we went to
49 graduate schools across the country. More than 40 CRS staff
have particupated in these recruitment trips. Each time we go
to a professional meeting or any other meeting, we try and talk
with the local graduate programs there and introduce this
program and bring them to Washington for the summer. The
Graduate Recruit Program has worked to get them early on,
before they have completed their degrees, along with the Law
Recruit Program and also Presidential Management Intern
Program. We are drawing them because we work with you.
I want to underscore the importance of this. This is our
future as an organization to be able to support you. As I
mentioned last year, the average tenure in CRS is 18 years
plus, over 18 years, as opposed to the shorter period of time.
I think with whether it was the discussion of the resolution in
Kosovo to the impeachment debate, the institutional memory of
CRS has served the Congress well.
Mr. Peterson. Is there any way Congress could be helpful in
your recruitment?
Mr. Mulhollan. As a matter of fact, yes, to be able to, in
fact, talk to your constituents. When you go to your colleges
and universities, mention that there is, in fact, a legislative
civil service. One of the challenges we have particularly with
minorities, African Americans, Hispanics, to attract them to
graduate schools, and one of the things we are doing in
outreach is try to get private assistance to get them to come
in to be exposed to what graduate work can do.
One of our problems in getting a greater diversity within
CRS, is getting those young people to get into graduate school
itself. It would be those kinds of things. Calling people to
public service again.
Mr. Peterson. Is there any effort to bring people--I see
society really changing, and people have a multitude of
careers. They don't do the same thing their whole life anymore.
They don't go to a company and work there and retire there.
People change careers. As for couples, when both are working,
one may have to change, and so the other, he or she, has to
find a different position. There are people approaching midlife
who have huge experience factors, but are looking for new
challenges. There are people who sell their company, or their
company goes down, and you have all this talent out there. And
many times there is even burnout in the business world. Do we
have any method of bringing these people in, or does our pay
scale always start out with the college graduate? Do we have
any way of bringing in people with 20 years of experience in a
certain field?
Mr. Mulhollan. There is a mix. We have a resource
management framework. For instance, our senior person in
military aviation left just recently. We had to bring in
someone at a more midcareer level in order to address that. As
you know, we have just completed our renewal of our survey for
retirement. We did it in 1996, and now we did it at the end of
1999 to make sure we are up to date, and we identified those
subject areas most at risk. For instance, again, if you had six
natural resources specialists, and three of the six are going
to be retiring by 2002, then we are going to identify that
position for entry level hiring. But if there is going to be
someone who is critical, and we don't have backup on an issue,
then we do have to, in fact, go to a more senior position.
But our emphasis and our commitment is trying to get people
at the entry level in order to build careers. So far we have
been successful in retaining people. Their imaginations are
caught in working for the Congress.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Especially in the digital area we just started,
we want to work them so hard and make it so interesting and
make it so necessary for them, and they realize how necessary
that is, that they don't want to leave. But we appreciate your
dedication.
Mr. Pastor. Just one more question. Last year we were in
the middle of talking about getting more employees to go on the
Metro, and the Library of Congress was one of the pilot sites,
I guess. Have you had a chance to assess it, looked at it?
Transit Subsidy
Dr. Billington. We have instituted this plan. I might add
that the costs, which are quite considerable, are the
equivalent of about 10 FTEs, as I recall. But in October 1999,
we implemented a so-called Metro Check program through the
Department of Transportation. I think it has been very well
received by the employees. Over 1,900 staff participate. Each
of them receive $21 month. If you add that up, it adds up to a
fair amount of money. We have been directed to implement the
program comparable to the House. That is what our direction
was, and we will continue, of course, to follow the House
program and will increase the monthly subsidy if so directed by
the committee.
Mr. Pastor. Good time to bring it out.
Dr. Billington. I think it has been successful and very
well received.
Mr. Pastor. But the employees have participated?
Dr. Billington. About 1,900 employees started in October,
maybe it has gone up since then, but it has been made available
to all employees. It has been very well received by perhaps
everybody except our people who try to figure out where the
money is coming from.
Mr. Pastor. I am sure your human resources person tells you
the morale is high, you are doing well.
Dr. Billington. I think our morale has also been improved
by our Director of Human Resources, so I think the combination
of those two things has certainly improved morale.
Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, how will the Books for the
Blind Program change to adapt to the Internet and the other new
technologies in the next few years?
Dr. Billington. In general, there has been movement in the
Braille field into the digital area. There will be a report out
in September about moving cassette production from the analog
into the digital area. This, of course, remains one of the
great services done by the Library through its network,
distributing 22 million free items annually. But Kurt Cylke,
our distinguished Director, can talk in more detail to this
subject.
Mr. Cylke. We are making every effort to work towards a
digital future. We have taken the tack to start designing a
standard for the audio book, and are working closely with the
commercial e-book community. We anticipate that this, which is
being done through the National Information Standards
Organization, will be ready for public comment in September.
We are projecting approximately a 5- to 7-year lead before
a change is made. One of the main reasons for this is the
amount of money that will be required. To make a full change
will require, if you are prepared for this, $100 million. That
is a significant investment. We have a piece of that already in
our budget, so we will not be asking for the full $100 million.
We would probably ask for half that amount in two increments.
In order to come to you in a reasonable way and say that our
request is based on fact, we have established a very carefully
staged development process. We are 3 years into it. We have,
before we will be talking to you directly, another 4 years.
What you read about in the press is an effort that we have
gone into in the Braille area where we have approximately 3,000
Braille books up on the Web which are accessible to eligible
users. Users read the books--rather than in the cumbersome,
bulky, multivolume Braille sets--on devices smaller than an
average print book actually, and find that they may download
it, keep it, read it as you and I can in airport terminals and
so forth. It is a successful digital project. This work is
going on with the cooperation of the blind community, the
National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of
the Blind. It is a harmonious project.
We are working toward an audio digital program. We will be
coming to you for support for transition, but not for a few
years yet.
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, as you mentioned a moment ago,
this is the beginning of our 200th anniversary of the Library.
We will be celebrating that, the Congress will. I first came on
this committee as a Minority Member in 1993 on the
subcommittee. I want to thank the staff and especially you, Dr.
Billington, because the respect that you are shown all over the
world lies not only on your administrative prowess. And we talk
about the security and the other items that we talked about a
moment ago, and we have read in other reports the next largest
library to the Library of Congress is only a third the size of
the Library of Congress, probably less than that, and certainly
does need again to offer the access and the information that
both the government and the people of the country offer. And
they certainly respect your knowledge and the exceptional
leadership you have shown all over the world in the desire to
make knowledge better known, and they respect your character.
And we are especially thankful that you have been at the head
of the Library, and we will enjoy celebrating this 200th
anniversary with you and your staff and Members of Congress and
the entire country. We appreciate your coming forward today.
For the record, insert all reprogramming documents and any
other committee approval actions. Today's hearing is now
adjourned. We will reconvene on Tuesday, February 1, at 9:30.
[Questions for the record from Representative Hoyer to the
Librarian of Congress:]
I have introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 3379) to establish a
sound-recording preservation program in the Library. Under my bill,
amounts raised by the private sector for this purpose would be matched,
up to $500,000, by appropriations. My bill is modeled on a successful
film-preservation program, which also contemplates matching
appropriations. I understand that in fiscal year 2000, the first year
in which the film program was authorized for matching appropriations,
the Library did not receive the matching funds, and that you have not
even requested them this year.
Question. Can you comment on the effect the Congress' decision not
to fund the film program has had on the Library, and what the effect
would be if Congress passes my sound-recording bill and similarly
declines to fund it?
Answer. Last year, the $250,000, directed by Congress (without
funding) for the National Film Preservation Foundation cost the Library
approximately five (5) FTEs in Library Services. If the new proposal
for a sound-recording preservation program were similarly directed but
not funded--it would be twice as devastating: it would cost the Library
another ten (10) FTEs, for a net loss of fifteen (15) FTEs per year.
These specific reductions in FTEs would compound the problems caused by
the overall reduction of 14% (626 FTEs) between fiscal years 1992 and
1999--caused primarily but unfunded mandatory pay and price level
costs. Overall, another reduction in total Library FTEs limits our
ability to achieve and maintain arrearage reduction goals and restricts
our capacity to accomplish our mission and critical security
initiatives.
The Conference Report on H.R. 1905, the fiscal 2000 Legislative
Appropriations Act, directed the Architect to provide the Librarian
with a ``reasonable, effective and efficient plan of action . . . to
correct the hazards and deficiencies'' identified by the Librarian with
respect to fire safety in the aftermath of the April 30, 1999, fire in
the Madison Building.
Question. Do you agree with the plan provided by the Architect?
Answer. No, the Library does not agree with the plan submitted by
the Architect. During the formulation of the plan, the Library stated
to the Architect that we did not approve of the plan because it was
insufficient. The plan is vague, priorities are not consistent with our
wishes, and target completion dates are not being met. The Library
recommended to the Architect that the plan be modified to include:
milestone and completion dates, qualification of the work to be done;
an assessment of the risk to employees, patrons and collections;
funding request dates; progress reports; and confirmation that the plan
does not exceed the Architect's ability to manage multiple projects.
[Question for the record from Representative Hoyer to
Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service:]
Last year you stated you views on pending legislation to make CRS
products accessible to the public over the Internet.
Question. What adverse effects would there be on the Service or its
budget if Congress created and operated a web site to index CRS
products that have already been placed on the web by Members or
committees, and which might be placed on the web in the future, in
order to enhance public ability to access those products?
Answer. The suggested Web index appears to alleviate many, although
not all, of the policy, legal and cost concerns raised by pending
legislative proposals intended to further the general public
dissemination of CRS products. Following is a review of the major
issues raised by the proposal.
Policy Issues. The proposal calls for an index of CRS products
which have been previously placed on the Web by Members and committees.
Given that the index would be made available to the general public on
the Web site developed and operated by Congress, it is consistent with
the manner in which CRS products have been historically distributed to
the public (selectively, by congressional offices) and it preserves the
constitutional role of Members in informing their constituents. The
proposed index does not present the same institutional difficulties as
the pending bills (H.R. 654 and S. 393) because it preserves the
principle of selective dissemination and the role of CRS as an
extension of congressional staff. Congress might wish to consider
expanding the index to include selected products prepared by other
congressional entities to further emphasize CRS' mission as a
legislative support agency serving the Congress, rather than the
public.
Legal Issues. With regard to pending legislation intended to
increase the availability of CRS products to the public, CRS has raised
several legal concerns related to speech or debate clause immunity of
the Constitution. These concerns are significantly reduced by the
proposed index of CRS products. Because the proposed index to CRS
products would not be operated by CRS, the Service would not be
directly involved in the constitutionally unprotected informing
function and, accordingly, would not be liable in any suit predicated
on the public dissemination of the products. Under the proposal, CRS
would continue to provide direct Service only to Congress (not the
public). Therefore, the proposal would not jeopardize the judicial and
administrative perception of the Service's functions as legislative
ones within the scope of constitutional speech or debate clause
immunity. This will permit CRS to continue to invoke such immunity
where necessary to protect the confidentiality of its work for Members
and committees.
Cost Issues. The pending bills contemplate that CRS would revise,
edit and redact its products before making them available to the
public. It would also require a 30-day delay before any product can
become directly accessible to the public. These provisions create the
potential for administrative complexity and substantial expense for CRS
in their administration. As the proposed index does not appear to
include these requirements, it would not generate the same adverse
effects.
As I advised the Subcommittee last year, the Congressional Budget
Office has estimated the pending legislation would involve annual
implementation costs for CRS ranging between $2,000,000 and $7,000,000.
Much of this expense would arise from a shift in the focus and utility
of CRS products that were subject to wholesale public dissemination. It
could also result in a increase in congressional requests for tailored,
confidential memoranda that are provided only to the requesting office
and hence, much more costly to prepare on a per units basis. Because
the index would be based on selective rather than wholesale
dissemination, it may be expected that its effects on CRS product
focus, and the resulting cost increase, would be significantly less
than under the pending bills. Without knowing the specific details of
the index proposal, it is difficult to determine precise cost
estimates. In order to limit the immediate budgetary impact on CRS,
Congress might wish to consider controlling the volume of public
dissemination, e.g., by limiting the index to CRS products on active
legislative issues (a category which currently includes approximately
500 CRS products).
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
WITNESSES
HON. JIM SAXTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CHRISTOPHER FRENZE, CHIEF ECONOMIST TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Taylor. The subcommittee will come to order. We are
pleased to welcome Congressman Jim Saxton, a good friend, Vice
Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. The Chairman, Senator
Connie Mack, cannot be with us today. Vice Chairman Saxton's
staff director is also here, Chris Frenze. The budget
justification material has been printed in part I and has been
distributed to the members.
Mr. Chairman, your letter reflects a request of $3.3
million. That is an increase of $115,000 above the current
level. Your staffing level will stay at 38, I believe.
All of the prepared statements will be inserted in the
hearing record. If you have no objection, we will have a few
questions after brief comments.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Budget Request and Committee Research
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here with you again this year and I do have a lengthy
statement, which I will be happy to put in the record and I
will just take a minute to summarize it.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here to ask for your
support for our budget request for fiscal year 2001 for the
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). As you know, the JEC is
essentially Congress' own in-house think-tank examining a wide
variety of economic and related issues. This budget request
will support the JEC's focus on quality research and economic
analysis required by Congress and the public. The committee's
research is widely-cited and our website, incidentally, has
been rated as one of the top three committee websites on
Capitol Hill by the Nonpartisan Congressional Management
Foundation.
Committee research covers a wide variety of subjects. For
the last couple of years, we have focused on two issues in
particular. One is the Fed's practice of monetary policy and
inflation targeting, which obviously has been a very, very
successful policy carried out by the Fed. It is, I believe,
largely through our studies, analyses, and reports that Members
of Congress have gained some insight into this Fed policy.
The other area that we have spent an enormous amount of
time dealing with is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its
policies, how the IMF works, and we have, I might add, made
some very significant suggestions and have brought about a
number of changes with regard to the way the International
Monetary Fund operates inasmuch as the United States Treasury
provides something in the neighborhood of 26 percent of their
usable funds.
So those are the things that we have been involved in. As
you have correctly pointed out, we are requesting a cost of
living increase of 3.6 percent, which amounts to $115,000. We
think it is a reasonable request given the wide scope of
economic issues that we deal with. So I will stop there and ask
if you have any comments or questions, and I will be happy to
try to respond.
Mr. Taylor. If we have a tightness in budgets this year,
and we may find Congress is that way, do you have any places
that we can save in your budget at all?
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you get the same answer
to that question each time you ask it. But let me just point
out that in 1992, the Joint Economic Committee budget was about
$4 million. By 1998, we had taken a cut to $2.7 million. And we
have grown just slightly in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 so that
today and fiscal year 2000 our budget is $3.2 million, down
from what it was just 8 years before of a little over 4
million. We have made staff adjustments. We have reduced staff,
and we believe that during the mid-90's, we did a significant
amount of cost cutting and saving and at this point without
this kind of an increase, we feel that we will be literally
going backwards further than we can hope to a point where we
will have a difficult time doing an effective job. So it is not
that we have had a growing budget over the years. As a matter
of fact, we are a full 25 percent less now than we were 8 years
ago and we believe that we need this increase.
Mr. Taylor. Let me go beyond the budget question directly
and ask you in your committee's investigation of the economy
itself, do you think with the possible interest rates coming,
are we going to have a slowdown that would impact the Nation's
economy in a way that would impact our overall budget? And that
is more of a national question rather than a budget question
but will impact us as an appropriations committee.
Mr. Saxton. We will know more about increasing in a few
hours as the FOMC (Federal Open Market Commission) meets today.
The experts are telling us to expect a 25 basis point increase
in Fed funds rate. The increases that we have had heretofore in
recent months have not had a negative impact on the economy,
and so we can look back at those increases and say that we hope
that any future increases have the same minimal or negligible
effect, but beyond that it is hard to say exactly what the
effects will be.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. First of all, I welcome the Vice Chairman. I
did have a question since you are here with the IMF, what
happened this past year with the Russians and the money that
was lent to them? Does your committee have oversight on that or
do you get briefed on it so you have an idea what is happening
in that particular case?
Mr. Saxton. As a matter of fact, the question you asked is
a good one and it is a very difficult question to answer in
terms of the specifics of what happened to the money. As a
matter of fact, we have studied it, and during the third week
in November, I went to Russia with a CODEL to address this as
one of the major questions. It is without debate that the IMF
monies were not subject to meaningful IMF accounting controls.
From a U.S. point of view, we look at the lack of controls
on the general budgetary situation in Russia, and from a
Russian point of view, they like to contend that much of that
money was filtered back into the American banking system. And
so this is one of the weaknesses of the IMF. The fact of the
matter is the IMF has little or no control over the monies that
are sent overseas and therefore one of the reforms that we have
suggested, which has not been implemented to date, would
rectify that situation. There are a couple of institutional
problems that the IMF has. One is that there is a huge demand
for IMF funds among countries that are having economic problems
for two reasons. Number one, the interest rates are subsidized.
In other words, the interest rates are very low. And so if any
government or institutions in other countries can get their
hands on low interest rate loans, it is good for them.
The second is that the IMF used to loan for relatively
short periods of time for balance of payments reasons. In
recent years, long-term loans have been the norm for
developmental purposes. So it is a different point of view and
a different reason for making the loans.
The reforms that we have suggested would do away with
subsidized loans so that other countries would borrow at market
rates and it would rectify the long-term loan issue by
providing that loans be made on short-term purposes.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. The justification for lending in Russia is at
least our banks profited, which means it is an ill wind that
blows no one good. Thank you. I appreciate your presentations
today.
Mr. Peterson, do you have a question for Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Peterson. No, I don't. I just got here. Sorry.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. I have no questions.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your
presentation and we will be talking with you in the future.
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WITNESSES
MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
ROBERT T. MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
BILL GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
CHARLES C. COOK, SUPERINTENDENT, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
Mr. Taylor. We will now consider the fiscal year 2001
budget from the Government Printing Office. We want to welcome
Mr. Michael DiMario, the Public Printer. The 2001 budget
request totals $121.3 million. There are three appropriation
accounts involved. The congressional printing and binding
appropriation is a little over $80 million. The superintendent
of documents program, $34.5 million, and the revolving fund $6
million.
Before proceeding, Mr. Public Printer, would you like to
introduce your staff for us?
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would. To
my immediate right, Mr. Chairman, is Francis Buckley, the
Superintendent of Documents. To his right is Bob Mansker, my
deputy, and behind me is Mr. Bill Guy, our Budget Officer, and
we also have in the audience Mr. Charles Cook, who is
Superintendent of our Congressional Printing Management
Division.
PUBLIC PRINTER'S PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Taylor. We have your prepared statement. It will be
placed in the record. Do you have any comments you would like
to make?
[The prepared statement follows:]
Mr. DiMario. I think you have summarized our budget request
in your opening remarks. I can proceed on with that. An item
that wasn't mentioned is that we are requesting a statutory
ceiling on our FTEs of 3,285. If you recall last year, I had
raised a concern about eliminating the statutory ceiling and
the committee's judgment and the Congress' was to continue that
statutory limitation. So we have in keeping with that proposed
the limitation ourself, which is a number smaller than you had
imposed last year. But I would just point that out, that we
have reduced employment levels by 35 percent over the past
decade and by more than 33 percent since I took office in 1993.
This FTE level that we are requesting will allow us to hire
essential personnel. But we are still operating at a tight
level.
We have also requested two legislative changes to title 44
as part of our appropriation submission and those are contained
in the prepared statement. One pertains to the salary of the
Public Printer and the Deputy Public Printer and is a request
to keep the salary at a level consistent with other
congressional support agency personnel. The other change
requested is to a provision in title 44 that deals with the
ability of the superintendent to price documents at a level
that would allow greater discounts to book dealers. The current
statute has some limitations in it so we would like those
modest changes. That is contained in the statement.
Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions
that you might have. If I am not prepared to answer them, I am
certain that my staff will join in.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Last year you were projecting the
Congressional Record would require 36,000 printed pages. Now
you are projecting 28,000 printed pages. That is a 22 percent
reduction. Can you explain that?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. The estimate for FY 2000, a
presidential election year, was based on our 1996 level. We use
historical data to develop our estimates. For FY 2001, a first
session year, we originally came in at 29,500 pages but in the
course of your budget deliberations, you reduced the monies
that were available to us and as a result, we made an
adjustment in our estimate.
It really is a guess. We are out there in the future and
you may have given us enough money but you may not have. We
have found historically that the budget years sort of track
every 4 years. So in a presidential year, if you look at the
data in terms of production for a previous presidential year,
it gives a greater basis for us making an estimate, and that is
why we chose an earlier year. So we are using that historical
data and we are adding to our actual production data each year.
That is the reason for our budget request.
CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
[Questions from Chairman Taylor and responses follow:]
Question. You have asked for $80.8 million for
congressional printing and binding. To what extent is the $7.5
million increase due to increases in wages and other costs as
opposed to workload increases?
Response. Of the total increase of $7.5 million, $2.3
million, or 31 percent, is for wage increases required by
existing wage contracts, and other price level increases. The
balance of the increase, or $5.2 million is for workload. This
includes $2.6 million for the reprinting of the United States
Code, which is done every six years. While the request is an
increase compared to FY 2000, there have been significant
reductions during the 1990's. The request is 10% below the FY
1993 level, and is below the level appropriated every year from
1992 to 1997.
Question. What has been the trend in Congressional Record
pages in recent years?
Response.
Record Pages
1999.......................................................... 29,500
1998.......................................................... 29,500
1997.......................................................... 22,200
1996.......................................................... 39,000
1995.......................................................... 31,500
Mr. Taylor. It is not an estimate that this Congress will
talk less and act more. It is just an optimistic budget.
House members are no longer able to charge this
appropriation for sending copies to constituents and yet we
still appropriate money for the Senate to do that. How much is
spent for the Senate?
Mr. DiMario. It is about $450,000. The exact number is
1,801 copies of the Record that Members of the Senate are
designating for appropriate institutions of learning or what
have you in their judgment. We refer to them as constituent
copies but there is a limitation in the statute that says that
they should be going to public agencies and institutions.
Mr. Taylor. House committees reimburse the GPO for
employees detailed to assist committees in preparing documents
for printing. We continue to appropriate funds for Senate
committees. How much is in the budget for that?
Mr. DiMario. There were 45 detailees altogether. 21 of
those detailees were to 14 Senate committees and the cost for
that Senate portion is $1.3 million. They are among those 45
detailees. Some detailees go to support activities of the
Congress. The House has 9 detailees to 6 committees.
Mr. Taylor. Your projected data of preparation costs have
also fallen. Last year you estimated that FY 2000 costs would
be over 12 million. Now you have cut that estimate back to 9.4
million. Is that because the House and Senate are providing
electronic copy? Of course, that saves the GPO the cost of
conveying manual transcripts to the electronic database.
Mr. DiMario. To some degree it is but the larger answer is
that we made the same kind of adjustment because of the amount
of funding that you gave us and based our estimate on that
reduced funding as opposed to historic basis. We recognize that
we will probably have a considerable amount of work this year
because we have additional things to do. As an example, we have
a new edition of the United States Code to prepare and we do
that every 6 years. I think that is mentioned in the statement.
We have indicated a very substantial increase in both the
printing side and later in the Salaries and Expenses
appropriation for that United States Code preparation and
distribution. We have had considerable improvement, however,
over the years in terms of electronic submission from the House
side and we are very pleased with that. Frankly, we would not
be able to produce what we produce today had we not made this
transition electronically with the Clerk of the House's office
and we appreciate their efforts.
Mr. Taylor. For the record, would you provide a tabulation
of the format supplied by the House and Senate for the daily
record for the past 5 years.
[The information follows:]
The following indicates the percentage of input received in
electronic format. In addition, GPO is able to access
electronic data files resident in GPO archives, to avoid
rekeying and proofreading various bills and reports that appear
in the Record.
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House......................................................... 47 49 49 4 2
Senate........................................................ 45 46 51 46 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Taylor. I would like to address the superintendent of
documents. We have the superintendent of documents, Mr. Francis
Buckley with us. The budget for the superintendent is $34.5
million. The largest item is for the depository program, $29.8
million. A lot of your publications are now in electronic
format: CD-Rom, Internet, access, and so forth. How much has
that saved your program?
ELECTRONIC FORMATS
Mr. Buckley. Last year we distributed about 32,000 new
titles in electronic format compared to about 40,000 in hard
copy so almost 50 percent of our new submissions were in
electronic format. We estimate that if the materials that we
are providing in electronic format had to be distributed in
hard copy it would have cost us at least another $4 million. So
we save money but of course that has been invested in producing
the GPO Access databases and service and so we are making a
much better use of the funding because of the electronic
formats. We are seeing a huge increase in the amount of use
because of that.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. How many documents are included in this program
and how many are in electronic format?
Response. In FY 1999, paper and microfiche distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was
40,253. New titles distributed electronically totaled 32,733.
Approximately 15,000 titles are in both formats. Also, 682 CD-
ROM titles were distributed. Cumulative titles on GPO Access
totaled 101,279, with links to an additional 59,447 titles on
agency and partner web sites.
Mr. Taylor. As new titles come in, what portions are
electronic?
Mr. Buckley. Over 60 percent of the new titles are in
electronic format.
Mr. Taylor. Do you offer paper format also of those
electronic documents?
Mr. Buckley. In some cases, yes. A number of things, such
as the Congressional Record or the Federal Register or U.S.
Code are in both formats. In some cases, the electronic format
is not yet considered the official version of those titles
either in courts or by the agencies that issue them. So a
number of libraries and members of the public need the hard
copy versions because they are the official copies. We are
making a transition in terms of the overall depository program
to more electronic access and electronic publications. When
there is the availability of something in both hard copy and
electronic, more and more we are selecting only the electronic
version.
Mr. Taylor. There is a question about how the library needs
an official copy.
Mr. Buckley. Well, many citizens who come in, lawyers and
others, need the official copy of publications to cite and to
verify. We are supplying not only public libraries but academic
libraries, law libraries, and courts across the country through
the depository program.
FTE'S
Mr. Taylor. Ordinarily, we think of electronic being cost
saving and I think that's certainly what it has proven to be.
However, you are asking for 9 more FTEs for that program. Can
you explain that?
Mr. Buckley. Yes sir. Of the 9 FTEs, four are for our
cataloging and indexing program, which is part of the
Superintendent of Documents operation and a separate section in
title 44 that requires us to produce a catalog and index of
government information products. With the explosion of the
numbers of titles being produced on the Internet, we need to
increase the number of staff working on that. Five of the
positions are in the depository program. Three of them are for
GPO Access a couple of people who actually work on telephone
support desks and one person who would help with the
development of new products. We also asked for an additional
library inspector, since we visit the depository libraries on a
periodic basis, and one staff person to help with the overall
development efforts for the electronic collection.
Mr. DiMario. The library inspection is required by the
statute so it is compliance with the statutory provision.
AIR CONDITIONING
Mr. Taylor. You are asking for $6 million to replace the
air conditioning at the plant. Last year we challenged that on
the basis that it should have been part of the cost factored
into the cost for your clients. Do you have an explanation or
is it just because at this time of year nobody thinks about air
conditioning?
Mr. DiMario. No sir, we do have an explanation. It is an
extraordinary expense and rates normally are something that are
providing for increases in services or charges for specific
services. When the air conditioning went in initially in 1974,
we received an appropriation and we continue to believe that
that is appropriate. Because of our difficulties in continuing
to maintain operations and low paper prices, and a whole range
of other factors, we have effected price increases to our
customer agencies already. We continue to increase prices to
the Congress and to the agencies of government as necessary as
our costs increase. In the printing procurement program I
effected a price change from 6 percent to 7 percent of the
actual cost of the procured printing in order to recover an
adequate sum of money to maintain that program in terms of our
direct expenses and overhead. This is after we dramatically cut
the size of the agency. I have effected the same kind of thing
in the sales program. I directed a 15 percent increase in the
prices for the sales of publications because there has been an
underrecovery from the sale of publications. We are not meeting
that. So we are passing on those costs but with dramatic
increases to others in order to maintain that stability and now
to pass on the additional increase of the $6 million doesn't
seem rational.
Our operating budget does not allow us to have a surplus
that we can draw on to deal with the air conditioning. We need
air conditioning. The employees deserve the air conditioning.
It is an old system that is broken down. We have had people
from the Joint Committee on Printing and I believe from this
committee come over and examine the structure after last year's
hearings and we continue to believe--I continue to believe that
it is a necessary expenditure and that it is fully justified to
request it.
Mr. Taylor. Have we been given a copy of your building
plans? I think last year we requested that.
Mr. DiMario. I believe we submitted the plans to----
Mr. Mansker. We have at least submitted it to the Joint
Committee on Printing. I thought we sent you a copy. If we
didn't, we will certainly give it to you.
[The information follows:]
PRINTING PROCUREMENT
Mr. Taylor. Did you increase the printing procurement
prices because the volume has increased?
Mr. DiMario. No, sir. The volume has declined more rapidly
than our costs have been reduced. More agencies are producing
electronic products. There is a decline. And we have cut the
size of the workforce operation. However, the main reason for
increasing it, is that paper prices over the years have been
very low. They are historically much lower than they normally
have been. Paper is a large component of procured printing. It
means that when our contractors bid, they bid lower prices as a
general rule and the government overall benefits because we are
procuring at lower prices. Therefore, when we charge a
surcharge against that lower overall price, we are recovering
less money on which to operate our own function. So we have to
find a way of getting that money that is necessary to operate
the function even after we have reduced our costs. And so the
way that we do that is to increase the surcharge, and that is
what we did.
Mr. Taylor. You make a good argument for privatization.
Mr. DiMario. It is pretty privatized now. About 75 percent
of what we are doing is purchase printing. We are talking about
purchased printing through the private sector. My sense is that
we have privatized very dramatically over the years and I think
that the direct operation that we have is essential to the
government and I am very proud of what we do. We, by the way,
right now have a major procured product, some $60 million in
procured printing for the United States Census that is ongoing.
That is the decennial census. It is a major undertaking, and
that could not be carried out except for the contracts that we
are able to place for the Bureau of Census.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. For the record, insert all
reprogramming documents submitted to and received from the
committee.
[The information follows:]
Agency response. There are no reprogramming documents.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, do you have questions?
REVOLVING FUND
Mr. Pastor. I am looking at your prepared statement on page
4; you discuss the revolving fund. You talk about after 2 years
of net income, in 1999 you had a deficit of $5 million and you
say that one was on the sales program and the other one was the
printing procurement program. How would you break the $5
million down?
Mr. DiMario. Bill Guy may be able to break it down better
than I can.
Mr. Guy. We had a loss of $9.2 million in the sales
program.
Mr. Pastor. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Guy. We had a loss of $9.2 million in the sales program
and we had a loss of about $5.6 million in the procurement
program and net income of about $11 million to the plant. The
$5 million loss was the net consolidated loss for the whole
year for the entire revolving fund.
Mr. DiMario. I would also like to point out while it is a
loss, we used the retained earnings in the revolving fund to
pay that difference.
Mr. Pastor. I understand. But you still were $5 million--
and the majority of it was in the sales program.
Mr. DiMario. Yes sir. And because of that, I have raised
the price of government publications by 15 percent across the
board in order to recover the money that we are supposed to
recover in a self-sustaining program. It is the prudent thing
to do.
Mr. Pastor. Then, we have made price adjustments. That is
15 percent in both programs to increase cost recovery in the
future?
Mr. DiMario. No sir. The 15 percent was not in the
procurement program.
Mr. Pastor. I am reading your statement.
Mr. DiMario. We raised prices 15 percent for the sale of
publications and the Administrative Committee of the Federal
Register, of which I am a member, of the three-member
committee, at my request made an adjustment for the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, and other CFR
products at 15 percent. That coincides with the 15 percent that
I directed for the sales program.
Mr. Pastor. What have we done on procurement?
Mr. DiMario. We increased it from 6 percent to 7 percent on
procurement.
Mr. Pastor. One percent increase?
Mr. DiMario. It was a one percent change. The increase is
about seventeen percent.
Mr. Pastor. Have you had a chance to kind of gauge it to
see where we are at?
Mr. DiMario. Not yet. We put these in place to coincide
with the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mr. Pastor. October?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. So it is rather difficult at this
point. We think it is working.
Mr. Guy. The procurement program we think is going to be
operating in the black this year. The census work is going to
help along with the rate change. So we think the procurement
program is all right and we are doing a number of things in the
sales program to help turn that around.
Mr. Pastor. But what are some of the other things you are
doing other than the 15 percent increase?
Mr. Buckley. We have reduced staff by 44 employees in 1999.
Mr. DiMario. We have consolidated warehouse space. We have
given up some warehouse space in Laurel, Maryland, that was
used for the sales program. We are looking now to reduce some
of our warehouse space for our materials management office in
northern Virginia and to move some of those functions out to
Laurel to reduce leased space. That would reduce the cost for
the sales program and still give us an adequate amount of
warehousing space. So that is part of it. We are continuing to
review methods that will allow us to reduce the costs. The
object is to maintain a self-sustaining program. Unlike the
procurement program, the public is the one that bears the cost
for the sales publications. So it is a charge to the public.
However, I would submit that these are still enormous bargains
to the public if you compare the pricing to the private sector
for the same material. And with respect to the printing
procurement program, that pass-through is very, very small in
terms of its real dollars and it is spread out over all the
budgets of all the executive branch agencies. Going from 6
percent to 7 percent is not an overwhelming charge and in most
agencies it would be very small. The vast majority of the jobs
we procure are $2,500 or less. The argument might be from an
agency like Internal Revenue Service. So when we do the IRS
forms, they obviously have a substantial bill and so an
increase to them might seem quite large. To most agencies it is
a very small increase.
Mr. Pastor. I might suggest to you what you just said you
might want to put down on paper and provide it to the committee
so we can go back and say you have tried to recover the monies
that you realized in 1999. Maybe if you give us some bit of
detail, we can refer back to them.
Mr. DiMario. We certainly will.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Pastor. You came out okay on your audit according to
your last statement. The audit resulted in a clean opinion.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. We have done that for a number of
years and we have been very proud of the fact that we have been
able to get a clean opinion. We have been audited according to
private sector standards for the most part. My understanding is
that the accounting profession is now instituting some changes
in standards that will affect government standards across the
board. I really don't know how that will affect us in the long
run but we have worked hard in this area and I praise our
accounting and finance staff for the work they have done.
AIR CONDITIONING
Mr. Pastor. Just let me touch on air conditioning. I agree
with you. Being here in June and July, it is better to be in
Arizona where it is about 110.
Mr. DiMario. It's an industrial facility. Our people
deserve good treatment.
Mr. Pastor. The argument is that possibly the air
conditioning system should be part of doing business. It is
hard to make that argument when you are in deficit in your
sales. I would only suggest to you that might be able to give
us some comparisons where we also have similar type of agencies
in serving the public to maintain a low cost product where the
operation maintenance or at least the maintenance of facilities
is underwritten by this committee.
Mr. DiMario. We certainly can do that.
Mr. Pastor. I was trying to bolster your argument. I am
just trying to help you out.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you. I would submit some agencies
receive a direct appropriation for their employees and so you
have salaries and expenses appropriations. We only receive a
salaries and expenses appropriation for a small number of
employees in our Office of Superintendent of Documents that are
involved primarily with the depository library program. None of
our other employees are funded directly that way. Congressional
Printing and Binding and the bulk of the structure is funded
through rates that we charge. So it is more than just the air
conditioning. It is a whole range of things. And if that is the
way Congress wants us to operate, we certainly will look at
other agencies and give you some comparison and hopefully it is
helpful to us. But we are not out trying to feather our nest
with this. We are looking for a way of providing a rational
environment in which to provide the work that is necessary to
the Congress and to the agencies of government. I have done my
best to reduce the size of the agency and to meet the cost
reductions that have been mandated in the nearly 7 years that I
have been there, and I don't know what more to do. In terms of
making the request, I certainly could pass the rates on. But,
in my judgment at this point in time, I thought it was still
prudent to ask for direct appropriation.
[The information follows:]
This committee provides funding for facilities and maintenance by
direct appropriation to the Architect of the Capitol for the Capitol,
House and Senate Office Buildings, the Library of Congress buildings,
the United States Supreme Court and other facilities in the Legislative
Branch. By contrast, GPO does not receive any no-cost support from the
Architect of the Capitol. GPO bears other substantial overhead costs,
without a direct appropriation, including the GPO Police, the GPO
Inspector General, janitorial services, all utilities, the annual
financial audit, and the GPO Office of Equal Employment Opportunity.
Providing an appropriation for the air condition system, as Congress
did over 25 years ago when this requirement last arose, will help GPO
to maintain rates at a reasonable level and will help to eliminate
losses.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Wamp?
Mr. Wamp. I have no questions.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer?
AWARDS
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to
make a comment, Mr. DiMario, members of the GPO staff. I
understand you received an award as the best in-plant printing
operation in the country.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, two years in a row.
Mr. Hoyer. Explain to me the importance of this award--for
those of us who don't read In-Plant Graphics magazine on a
regular basis.
Mr. Pastor. Which is that?
Mr. Hoyer. Plant Graphics magazine, which is a trade
publication.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. They survey in-plant printing
operations throughout industry both the private sector as well
as government. State governments have in-plants. Many agencies
of government, including the Federal Government, have in-plant
operations. Colleges and universities are among the biggest.
They have in-plant operations that support their functions. And
they have done a survey on the basis of looking at all of
these, and in each instance GPO has been deemed to be very,
very effective and deemed to be the largest in terms of its
operation even though we have reduced dramatically.
Mr. Hoyer. I understand you are best in the country at this
time.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hoyer. That is a very significant accomplishment for
you, for leadership and all the men and women who work for GPO.
I think that is important for us to focus on because all too
often we focus on the negative. Also, I want to congratulate
you again; I remember that Chairman Hyde was effusive with his
comments in reference to GPO performance on getting the Starr
Report out, that voluminous report, obviously high public
drama, unfortunately as an aside, but nevertheless that was an
incredible job that you performed in a very short period of
time. And in addition, Mr. Chairman, I think when the Microsoft
findings were issued by Judge Jackson, GPO had that report out
very, very quickly and had it on-line simultaneously; and as I
understand it within the first two hours, over 150,000 people
were able to access that report electronically. That in and of
itself is an incredible accomplishment and a testimony of our
times and how rapidly a document can be disseminated. I know
Speaker Gingrich talked a lot about that, and Representative
Thomas, Chairman of the House Administration Committee, talked
a lot about making sure information was available. But on all
those items, I want to congratulate you because those of us who
are proponents of GPO's role and its importance to the Congress
and the government and the American people from time to time
get glazed eyes. But when you point to specifics, best in the
country among large printing operations, performing incredible
turnaround with two very large reports that were both very
important not only to the government efficiency but also to the
democracies, that is important and I commend you and your
people for that.
[Representative Hoyer submitted the following article for
the record:]
Mr. DiMario. I appreciate that, Mr. Hoyer, thank you.
U.S. CODE
Mr. Hoyer. You referenced in your presentation the U.S.
Code. Do you have any option as to whether to do that work or
is that statutorily required?
Mr. DiMario. It is statutorily required. It is replaced
every 6 years. During the interim years, they issue supplements
and the Code is kept current in that way, but on a periodic
basis the entire Code is replaced and so that is an
extraordinary cost. That is borne through Congressional
Printing and Binding and through the Depository Library Program
too.
PRICING PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Pastor asked about pricing. It has been an
ongoing problem for GPO in terms of pricing its products so
that it stays even, particularly when some of your customers
have great authority over whether or not they want to be
charged those prices. Can you tell me about the changes that
you are suggesting in Title 44 regarding the sales program?
Mr. DiMario. Perhaps Fran might talk about them better but
let me address it initially. Under the current law, book
sellers are authorized a 25 percent discount in our pricing
structure. All pricing is done under the provision of the Code,
section 1708. Within that provision, it speaks to books
discounted at 25 percent. The discount is from the standard
price which is cost plus 50 percent. That is the way it is
worded. However, the 50 percent which appears to be a margin in
fact is used to cover the cost of unsalable publications,
damaged publications, and book seller discounts, the volume
purchaser discounts. So all of those costs are borne in the
current pricing formula. A 25 percent discount is not
consistent with the industry, the book selling industry. Book
sellers traditionally get at least 40 percent and so there has
always been a demand from book sellers to get a better
discount. We think it is rational to accommodate them.
Mr. Hoyer. A higher discount, a lower cost.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. A higher discount is a lower price
for publications. Very substantially. They would be paying 60
percent.
Mr. Hoyer. Not a discount but what I meant was a higher
discount and a lower price so that they get the 45 percent
rather than the 25 percent--or 40 percent.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. That is the main concern.
Mr. Buckley. Just to amplify a little bit because over the
years, most book sellers have not wanted to carry government
publications in their stores. Because we haven't had a
sufficient discount program for them, they have not included
them. We are making great efforts to try and reach both the
commercial market and the public by doing more to list our
publications on some of the new electronic services,
amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, the electronic books in print.
But we still feel if we had the ability to offer and negotiate
a higher discount rate, we could have more outlets, actually
having copies of government publications out where the public
can buy them more readily.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. DiMario, have you requested of the House
Administration Committee this legislative change?
Mr. DiMario. I am not certain that we have submitted
anything to them on this specific change.
Mr. Hoyer. Do you intend to?
Mr. DiMario. We certainly would, yes.
Mr. Buckley. Was it included in our----
Mr. DiMario. It may have been--what Mr. Buckley is
suggesting--we have had----
Mr. Hoyer. I am positive you had in fact asked----
Mr. DiMario. In the past.
Mr. Hoyer. Obviously this would be within the purview of
the House Administration chaired by Mr. Thomas.
Mr. DiMario. We have not made a recent request of them but
when we had the title 44 reform on S. 2288 a year ago, there
was a package submitted to them with those changes requested.
Mr. Hoyer. This change wasn't included?
Mr. DiMario. It was included.
Mr. Hoyer. The request was included or wasn't? We haven't
passed the legislation.
Mr. DiMario. We have not passed the legislation but we did
ask for this legislative change at that time.
Mr. Hoyer. My suggestion would be to reiterate this to the
House Administration Committee.
Mr. DiMario. S. 2288 was simply passed out of the Senate
committee but not taken up in the full Senate and never came
over to the House.
Mr. Hoyer. I recall that.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask one followup question on that
previous matter. If we give the 40 percent discount as opposed
to a 25 percent discount, do you project our income will rise
because we have more outlets?
Mr. DiMario. We are hopeful of that. That is the main
reason.
Mr. Hoyer. By reducing our price, our profit would go up.
Mr. DiMario. We are hoping that by reducing our price to
book sellers thereby allowing the book sellers to sell the
publications and recover not only the cost of purchasing them
from us but a reasonable profit consistent with their industry
standards, we expect that we would have an increase in the
sales.
Mr. Hoyer. It makes a lot of sense if we could get more
outlets for government publications by reducing our price and
giving an incentive to book sellers to offer our product which
the American public would like to have.
SYSTEMS SECURITY
Last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. In light of the
recent hacking of the THOMAS system, what steps have we taken,
or what steps have you taken to secure our own systems?
Mr. DiMario. We have, number one, a brand new fire wall in
our system and this is for the production side of GPO, our
network, and I recently sent one of our staff personnel off to
a training program specifically on the fire wall system that we
have put in. We think our fire wall is quite secure and we have
not had a problem with that. We have had one problem a year ago
with an outside hacker in Australia trying to get into the
system but not beyond the fire wall. So they basically got into
the public system and that was investigated through the FBI at
the time.
So I guess the whole world will continue to have problems
with hackers but we are constantly looking at the issue of
security. We have an internal group that I put together to deal
with security of our systems and we are now in the process of
hiring another security specialist for network security.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BOOK SELLERS
Mr. Taylor. Certainly. If you have a dealer and you gave 40
percent or 25 percent, and you send a hundred volumes of X, do
they buy that on consignment or, if they don't sell, do they
send them back to you?
Mr. DiMario. Mr. Buckley might answer that.
Mr. Buckley. Right now we don't have a return policy. They
buy it outright at whatever discount we offer.
Mr. DiMario. I think it is required by the statute and my
own recollection of the statute that we receive money upfront
from the book sellers and anyone else.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. I would like to stay right in that avenue. I
have a couple of other questions. But I guess I always struggle
that government doesn't compete with the private sector. And I
guess the thought here that just struck me, why don't we sell
the right to publish these where we get a volume per book and
bid it instead of government being in the printing business to
sell those kind of documents. We sell the rights. You put it
together and that is worth something and somebody shouldn't
just sell that and we not get anything back but sell the rights
to publish it instead of all the warehouses we need and all
this printing we do and just sell the rights. You put it
together and that is valuable. Sell that document to anybody
who wants to print it and they have to pay a fee.
Mr. DiMario. That is one side of it. But what if there is
no interest in the private sector in selling everything? What
do you do with the remainder of the publications. Do you not
offer them for sale? Do you not offer them to the public?
Mr. Peterson. Where there is volume, there will be
interest.
Mr. DiMario. We understand that interest in profit.
Anything that is profitable--they can run that right now on
everything we do. They can go out under the current statute and
buy from us the duplicate plates, that is what the law says,
and go out without any composition costs, without anything. We
sell them the electronic file and they produce it and go out
and sell it at whatever price they want to. And they can make
any modifications on it and we have to compete with those folks
that do that on a daily basis. We know we can't compete on some
products and on other products we can. Many people, members of
the public, do still want to get their government information
in the first instance from their government. They want to be
able to come to the government and get that information. We
don't deny the rights of the private sector to sell but in
terms of selling rights that is another issue.
Mr. Peterson. I think there are other avenues that can be
explored.
Mr. Hoyer. I think that is an interesting point. The Starr
report, wasn't that also published by private sector dealers?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. What did they pay to get that?
Mr. DiMario.We take our cost of producing the duplicate
materials and we sell those duplicate materials to them. If it
is not----
Mr. Peterson. So you sell at your cost?
Mr. DiMario. At cost.
Mr. Peterson. Let's put it--on the Starr report, just think
if we had all the printers in America bidding on that, bid it
per copy, so that when you buy that every copy they sell we get
a commission because we put it together. You would make more
money than if you were in the books business.
Mr. DiMario. If we were doing that we probably would make
more money.
Mr. Peterson. And you wouldn't be competing with the
private sector in printing. You would get paid for what you
produce. I think it is an avenue to explore.
Mr. Hoyer. From my perspective, we don't want to give
additional incentives to have a hot seller like the Starr
report.
Mr. Peterson. Let's hope we don't have another one.
Mr. DiMario. They can today under the statute, anyone can
come in and ask to purchase the electronic file, or the law
says duplicates but we interpret that broadly.
Mr. Peterson. To help fund you, we ought to look at how to
do that. Does that make sense?
Mr. Taylor. Another impeachment we would get the money for
that.
Mr. Peterson. The Starr report would have bought the air
conditioning.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me get back to you on that next year.
PROCUREMENT PRICES
Mr. Peterson. I would also commend you on a lot of the good
work you do. And as Mr. Hoyer said, winning that award that is
prestigious. But let me just say this. I found it interesting
how we all use numbers. We all do this. But you said 6 to 7
percent was just--it is no increase at all but to the payer it
is a 17 percent increase. It is how we present. For the agency
paying, that's a 17 percent increase and it is not minuscule
from my prospective.
Mr. DiMario. Right. But if you have a product costing you a
dollar and I charge you 6 percent on that, you are now paying 6
cents. Now say that product goes down to 50 cents and now I
charge you 7 percent on that, how much have you paid for that
product? You have gotten----
Mr. Peterson. All products go down in price?
Mr. DiMario. The basic paper prices kept going down in the
industry so the result was that the private sector bidders are
coming in at much lower prices to the government. The
government is benefitting but we internally at GPO, deriving
our revenues, we end up losing money and so we have to have----
Mr. Peterson. You get my point?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
ELECTRONIC FORMATS
Mr. Peterson. I guess I am interested in the figure of 60
percent electronic formatted. Do we have a goal to be 100
percent or do we have a goal to be 90 percent? Where are we
headed?
Mr. DiMario. We had a direction from this committee to be a
fully electronic Federal depository library program. When Mr.
Packard was chairman of the committee, we undertook this and at
the time the goal of the committee was to have us move towards
a fully electronic program within 2 years. We argued that that
was impossible and that 7 years was more realistic. We
undertook a task force. I appointed a number of members and we
examined the whole process and made our recommendations. We
have moved in that direction towards this 100 percent goal but
realistically you will never reach 100 percent. But we are
doing a remarkable job as we move towards it more fully.
Mr. Peterson. What is a realistic figure, the ultimate? I
think we are all struggling with this change.
Mr. DiMario. I don't know. The agencies produce a product
through us. They decide that they want a product to be either
in paper or other formats, depending on its purpose. Let's look
at the decennial census. A lot of the publications are forms or
requests that are going out and they are going to go with
census takers around the United States taking data. They want a
paper format for certain kinds of things. Those are going to
continue to be paper products, at least in the foreseeable
future.
Mr. Peterson. I think we all ask for paper when we could go
to electronic because we are comfortable with it. I think that
is human.
Mr. DiMario. There is some of that but your question is
going to 100 percent. My statement to you is----
Mr. Peterson. What is a realistic goal? 90, 95.
Mr. DiMario. I really don't know what a realistic number
is. But I would just submit this. Prior to 1994, we did not
produce electronic products on the Internet. GPO access was
passed in 1993. We were given one year until June of 1994 to
put out electronic products starting with the Congressional
Record and Federal Register. That law did not mandate that we
put up all these products electronically. It only mandated the
Congressional Record and the Federal Register. We then went out
to other agencies and we got them to give us their products and
put them up electronically and we are doing more and more.
Subsequently Thomas came along. We gave to the Library of
Congress electronic files so they could put up electronic
products that are government products. It keeps growing and we
go out to the agencies, part of the request for additional
personnel is an outreach program to go out to the agencies to
ask them to give us files so we can put them up electronically
more and more, but we do not control the format of the
publication.
Mr. Peterson. I can't imagine having to deal with the whole
government--I am glad it is you, not me.
Mr. DiMario. It is a big thing and we are certainly moving
in that direction. We are moving towards 100 percent. Our
reductions internally in the office have been focused on that.
Frankly, our private sector operations are the ones that are
more paper driven than the internal ones. That is where we are
purchasing 75% of the printing.
PUBLIC ACCESS
Mr. Peterson. One more question here. On your strategic
plan, you say over the next 6 years the government will produce
more than $1 billion annually in printing and reproduction
services. Printing continues to serve as an effective safeguard
for ensuring that those without access to computers can still
use government information. I guess that is a large number of
people? I try to think in my own community of people who care
about government and are wanting information, who do not have
access.
Mr. DiMario. Mr. Pastor was here before and he previously
would have answered that question. I think he has done that in
a previous hearing on the same issue. He has argued, my
recollection at least, that many of his constituents do not
have access to electronic media.
Mr. Peterson. I have constituents who don't have access to
electronic, but I know a lot of very poor people who have
computers. It amazes me as to who is getting a PC with the
prices today. Sometimes they are hand me downs from other
family members but I want to tell you most anybody who wants a
PC today seems to be able to figure out a way to get one. You
can get a pretty cheap computer today. I would say for major
documents you would need a good printer and the power to drive
it, but there again, that is not going to be people who can't
afford them.
Mr. Hoyer. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Even more than that, fairly soon televisions,
which everybody has, will be transmitted----
Mr. DiMario. You have web TV. I have it at home.
Mr. Peterson. My neighbor is on e-mail with his family all
over the country. He doesn't have a computer. He has a little
box with a TV. I am struggling to stay up with. I think we have
to really realize what is happening out there. I guess the cost
effectiveness of not buying this book but printing a chapter
out of it is what I am concerned about. I don't care about the
whole book but there might be a chapter that I want, so I print
out the chapter. I guess that is how we have to think today of
how we provide information. We need to change faster, all of us
in, in everything we do. At least that is a idea that I wanted
to share with you.
Mr. DiMario. I agree on that completely but I am sitting
here with a stack of paper in front of me, most of which was
produced out of data that we have got stored in various
electronic formats.
Mr. Peterson. I am interested in working with you on how
you provide your data because I think we are missing the boat
there. I think we ought to be thinking less about printing it
and more about selling that prepared document, where we get a
cut every time it is printed. That is how we ought to sell it.
[Question for the record from Representative Hoyer and
response follow:]
Question. The General Counsel of the Library of Congress
has advised the Librarian that Title 44, United States Code,
does not require the Library to procure binding of materials
that are not Government publications through the Government
Printing Office. Have you seen her opinion, and do you agree
with it?
Response. We have seen the opinion, and we do not agree
with it. GPO's General Counsel has researched the matter and
developed a response to the Library of Congress opinion. His
finding is that the ``Library [of Congress] is required to have
all of its binding done at GPO, whether or not the documents
are published initially by the federal government'' (General
Counsel, GPO, memorandum to the Public Printer, ``Response to
Library of Congress Memorandum, dated October 29, 1999,''
November 17, 1999; emphasis added). GPO's General Counsel has
transmitted his findings to the Library of Congress and a copy
of his memorandum is attached for the record.
[Clerk's Note.--Representative Hoyer submits for the
Committee records the Biennial Report to Congress on the Status
of GPO Acess. This Biennial Report was distributed to the
Leadership of the Congress and to the Committees with oversight
jurisdiction. In addition, the report is available online at
www.gpo.gov/biennialreport. This report will remain in the
Committee files for one year for purposes of review.]
Mr. Taylor. Gentlemen, thank you. The committee will be in
recess till 1:00.
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
WITNESSES
BILL ARCHER, VICE-CHAIRMAN
LINDY PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF
Mr. Taylor. We welcome the Vice Chairman, Bill Archer of
the Joint Tax Committee. The Chairman is Bill Roth, who is
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. We also have Lindy
Paull, the Joint Committee's Chief of Staff. The Joint
Committee's request is $6.7 million. Mr. Vice Chairman, the
Members have been given a copy of your budget remarks and the
statement will be printed in the record. We will also place any
additional statements in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. We have a few questions, but we will yield to
you for a summarization of your statement or reading in full.
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ARCHER
Mr. Archer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
inference that this will be short and that you will just
approve our request so you can get back to the Architect of the
Capitol.
As briefly as I can, I have been here every year on behalf
of the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is one of those rare
bodies that serves both the Senate and the House and does so
professionally and in a nonpartisan way, and does an
outstanding job. Sadly enough, Mr. Chairman, you are probably
aware that our tax code becomes more and more complex, it
seems, every year. Maybe the day will occur when I will win and
we will abolish the income tax and go to a simple system, but
we won't belabor you about that today.
In the meantime, we need enormous expertise relative to the
Code, which no one individual fully understands. We need to be
able to respond to the requests that are made by individual
Members, both on and off the Committee, for revenue estimates,
which become vital as to what we do in the tax code, and the
Joint Committee has to crank out all of those estimates. They
have done an outstanding job, and I would just like to cite to
you verbally that they have done, in this last year, over 3,000
estimates responding to requests of over 4,000. The requests
from Members is 55 percent more than it was in the previous
year, and so they have been efficiently cranking these out, and
obviously it requires staff and it requires assets in order to
be able to do that.
In addition, the IRS Reform Act, which most all of us voted
for on a bipartisan basis, put added responsibilities on them
and required that they issue a report in each Congress about
the overall state of the Federal tax system and how it might be
simplified, et cetera. $200,000 was appropriated to fund that
report for this year, and we are asking that there be another
$200,000 for next year because the law requires it, that the
study be done subject to appropriation, and you have control
over that, of course.
They also have completed two major studies that were
mandated also by the IRS Reform Act, and that is the study of
the present-law system of penalties and interest and the study
of taxpayer confidentiality. Those two studies resulted in over
1,500 pages of documentation. All of this is just an enormous
drain on their assets as long as the Congress requires that
they do additional work. We really, unfortunately, need to
appropriate the money to see that it is done. As you will see
in the requests, they are asking for the standard amount for
salary increases, and I guess that is really about it, Mr.
Chairman. I think it is a reasonable request and I hope that
your committee will grant it.
STUDY ON THE STATE OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Archer. It is difficult for me
to deny my good friend Bill Archer anything. The Committee's
courtesy is not to be indicated as a total approval.
You asked for $291,000 covering staff cost of living salary
adjustments. There is $200,000 that remains in the budget from
funds provided last year for a study required by the IRS Reform
Act. Since this is a two-year study, will these funds be
removed from your budget next year?
Mr. Archer. The problem is the Reform Act required that a
separate study be done for each Congress, and it is a
continuing legal requirement. Now, the Congress can decide,
because it is subject to appropriated funds, you don't want it
and not appropriate the money, and thereby deny the will of the
Congress in the IRS Reform Act. What I would hope is that we
would take a look at the effectiveness of these studies and
reports, and although I won't be around in the next Congress,
that the Congress will then decide again whether they want to
appropriate the money to continue it or not. But in the
meantime, it is, of course, the law and they are required to do
it subject to appropriated funds.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, do you have any questions?
Mr. Pastor. No.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. No, Mr. Chairman, except by way of suggesting to
Chairman Archer how much I appreciate the work that he has
done, not just through this responsibility, but his work in
Ways and Means in general. When one is making plans to leave
this place, you can say things that you might not say other
times.
Mr. Archer. I have noticed that.
Mr. Lewis. One of the thoughts that occurs to me as I go
through this whole series of studies, if there a way the staff
can come up with a reasonable mechanism for charging the
individual office or agency requesting the report from Joint
Tax Committee? It might not only help with your budget, it
might very well cut down that 55 percent that you were
describing earlier. Just a thought. I wonder how many of these
are from the Senate and how many from the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Archer. Just very quickly. Our tax code has so many
unseen costs. The costs of compliance with this tax code, which
is not just the IRS, is not just the Joint Committee, is not
just what we see as the tip of the iceberg. The cost is
estimated to be $250 billion. Most of that has to be carried by
the private sector. It is atrocious that we continue to keep
this kind of a code, but that is an issue for another day, Mr.
Chairman, and I thank you for letting me just express those
sentiments.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Hoyer, questions?
Mr. Hoyer. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. No questions.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. We appreciate your presentation.
There is a lot of sympathy here for your comments.
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WITNESSES
ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
HERB FRANKLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
ROBERT MILEY, SUPERINTENDENT, HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS
AMITA POOLE, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING
STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER
LYNNE THEISS, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
MICHAEL G. TURNBULL, AIA, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Opening Remarks
Mr. Taylor. The subcommittee will come to order. We will
now take up fiscal year 2001 budget of the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol. We have Mr. Alan Hantman who is the
Architect of the Capitol and several members of his staff.
Before we get you to introduce your staff, let me give you
a few figures about the budget that we will take up today. The
estimates we will be considering is $185.5 million and 1,403--
FTEs. There are six appropriation accounts in your budget
request: Capitol buildings, $60 million; Capitol grounds, $6
million; House office buildings, $53.3 million; Capitol power
plant, $40.9 million; Library buildings and grounds, $20.3
million; and Botanic Garden, $4.9 million. This does not
include funds for the operations of Senate office buildings.
The other body will consider their own needs for office space.
That is estimated at about $67 million and 609 FTEs.
Please go ahead and introduce your staff, sir.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my far right,
Michael Turnbull is the Assistant Architect of the Capitol.
Sitting next to him is Amita Poole, our Superintendent of the
Capitol Building, and Stuart Pregnall, who is our Budget
Officer, among the staff seated behind me are Herbert Franklin,
Administrative Assistant, Lynne Theiss, Executive Officer and
Robert Miley, Superintendent of the House Office Buildings. Mr.
Chairman, distinguished members, I am pleased to present to you
the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Architect of the Capitol.
We have accomplished an awful lot in the last several
years, but clearly there is an awful lot more to be done. This
is one of the reasons that our budget is focused on four key
areas, four priorities for this year. The first is continuing
the process of creating an even safer environment here in our
buildings for members, for staff, and for visitors. Second is
to improve customer service, and the third is to enhance the
preservation, utility and security of our buildings.
Undergirding all of this, is to continue to build a strong,
better trained staff that supports all of our efforts. I thank
you for your leadership and support as we continue to build the
physical and social infrastructure so necessary to serve the
Congress. And we look forward to answering whatever questions
you may have, Mr. Chairman.
VISITOR CENTER
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. Let's start with the Visitors'
Center. There is no money in this budget for the Visitors'
Center, but a great deal has been accomplished, I think, since
last year. We were all lamenting the complicated approval
system at that time and processes that we all urge to be
streamlined. I think you agreed with us and all of us at that
time. We simplified the process with an amendment to the
authorization bill. How is the new process working? I know we
had to go through as many committees as there are ice cubes to
get the process going.
Mr. Hantman. I think, Mr. Chairman, with your support and
this committee's support, the issue of the Capitol Visitors'
Center becoming the responsibility of the Preservation
Commission is really a very positive move. We have really
exceeded our expectations in terms of beginning to move this
project along. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some $2.8 million was
appropriated from the $100 million that was allocated in the
emergency supplemental appropriation after the death of the two
police officers.
We have gone through a planning and revalidation phase
study taking a look at the 1995 plan and all of the aspects of
that plan from the spaces to the security issues, to all of the
issues that really impacted the validity of that plan,
including the specific site that made the most sense for the
Capitol Visitors' Center. We went through extensive studies
with a series of fine consultants and presented that. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, you were of course part of the process, as
part of the Capitol Preservation Commission, as was Mr. Hoyer,
and Mr. Pastor, you were also of course part of that process as
well.
I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, by the response of the
Preservation Commission. We had a thorough report. We validated
the site on the east front of the Capitol. We brought up
several issues that had not been discussed or studied at all in
the 1995 plan, issues that relate to life safety, for instance.
We made a very strong point that even if the Visitors' Center
were never funded, never went on, that we needed to improve the
life safety for the visitors that entered our buildings. In
fact, we had a $5 to $6 million line item that the Preservation
Commission approved for a new elevator on the House side, a new
stair enclosed and fire-rated. The same thing was approved on
the Senate side in the expansion area on the east front of the
Capitol, the non-historic area.
So that will be a very helpful issue for us with the
Visitors' Center, and I have great faith that that project will
move ahead.
VISITOR CENTER DESIGN
Mr. Taylor. What about the design work, when do you expect
that to be finished and ready for bid?
Mr. Hantman. We are currently entering a letter of intent
with the consultants for this phase of the work, the design
development and then the construction document phase. The
Preservation Commission allocated $12 million on the basis of
my obligation plan for these phases of the work. This letter of
intent is being entered into this week, in fact, and we will be
proceeding to evaluate the full contract with these
consultants. So we expect the design development phase apart
from review periods will take 6 months, followed by
approximately 11 months for the construction document phase. In
between, of course, we will be meeting with the Preservation
Commission staff and members to talk about issues that need
resolution and input from the Congress on these points. So the
amount of time that it will take to get reviews and approvals
from the Commission again is something that I cannot control.
VISITOR CENTER COST ESTIMATES
Mr. Taylor. Can you lay out the latest cost estimates and
maybe an idea of the construction schedule?
Mr. Hantman. The cost estimate presented to the
Preservation Commission was in the magnitude of $233 million
for all hard and soft costs for construction. In addition, we
had another $32 million, I believe it was, for security costs
and allowance for exhibit costs which have not yet been
designed in either case.
Mr. Hoyer. How much was that?
Mr. Hantman. Some $32 million, I believe it was. A grand
total of $265 million with these allowances included is what
was presented to the Preservation Commission, Mr. Chairman.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follow:]
Mr. Taylor. I have a number of questions in some other
areas, but I would like to take up the Visitors' Center and go
around the Committee because I think all of us have special
questions in that area.
Mr. Pastor, do you have questions?
Mr. Pastor. As I recall, we saw the model and then there
were some additions and tunnels and whatnot. Now, what was the
final consensus of what was going to be added or not added?
Mr. Hantman. The members of the Preservation voted
basically to approve, I think about four or five specific line
items. First line item specifically related to the location for
the Visitors' Center itself, which is on the east front of the
Capitol. That was approved. The second line item dealt with the
issue of these new elevators and stairs in the east front of
the Capitol for $5 or $6 million additionally. That also was
included. Another line item of--I believe it was $10 or $12
million--was to take the truck entrance access across
Constitution Avenue to New Jersey Avenue so we would not have
to have a gouge in the Olmsted landscape plan and the security
problem of every time a truck entered or left the Visitors'
Center having police stop the pedestrians who are walking on
the grounds in that area.
So that also was approved. I think one of the issues dealt
with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate
being given clearance to develop a plan to raise private funds
to supplement the $100 million that was originally
appropriated. Those were the major issues that were raised and
approved. In addition to that, several issues were raised
relative to, say, a Library of Congress tunnel, the possibility
of bringing one from the Jefferson Building over to the new
Visitors' Center. So we are actually dotting our i's and
crossing our t's in this validation planning study to be able
to look at that possibility of the tunnel, the pluses and the
minuses, the costs, the implications of running above the
Amtrak tunnel, and the security issues relative to screening
people on the library side versus the CVC side as well. So that
is being studied as are several other issues raised by members
of the staff.
VISITOR CENTER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pastor. So right now you are doing a letter of intent
for the design work which is getting to be 6 months?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Pastor. What issues are still outstanding that will not
be covered by this design? If I am going to do a letter of
intent for design work, I am assuming that all of the issues
are resolved and the design work is going to be for the final
product. So the reason I asked the first question was there are
still issues out there that are not finalized, and how are we
doing a design letter of intent when there is still a few
issues out there that aren't resolved?
Mr. Hantman. Two things. First of all, one of the elements
that I neglected to mention in response to your first question
was the expansion area relative to the Capitol Visitors'
Center. There is 150,000 square feet split evenly between the
House and the Senate. That also was approved. As far as the
design is concerned, design development is just that. We have a
concept now. We have the layout of the broad sense of the
spaces. What we need to bring before the Preservation
Commission is the issues of the meeting rooms that they may or
may not want in this space, the configuration of the
auditorium, the capacity of the auditorium.
Mr. Pastor. Let me stop you there. I have a hard time
understanding how you are going to do a design and yet not know
how many offices, how many rooms, what the auditorium is going
to look like, I mean, that is a major design and you're going
to have the design within 6 months. The Preservation Committee
may not meet for another couple of months. Somewhere I am
missing the boat. Maybe you might explain it to me.
Mr. Hantman. Design development, actually, sir, serves that
function. We will be going to the staff of the Preservation
Commission with all of our questions. They will be bringing it
to the individual members for resolution if, in fact, that is
the nature of the type of question we ask. Design development
is to do just that. We have an auditorium configuration, and we
are looking at several alternative configurations at the
request of the staff. We need to bring it to the Preservation
Commission and say this is the one that makes the most sense,
this it where we will go in the process. We will still have the
construction document phase after the design development phase.
There is another step of the design process. We are not turning
them loose to do construction documents for bidding purposes
until after this phase.
Mr. Pastor. I think you are being optimistic, to say you
are going to get it done in 6 months. If you are going to have
the Preservation Committee, first of all, get together and look
at the different designs that you are proposing, so I think you
are pretty optimistic, don't you think?
Mr. Hantman. I think we need to be optimistic. Quite
frankly, Mr. Pastor----
Mr. Pastor. In this environment, yes, I will grant you
that.
Mr. Hantman. I frankly think if we hadn't been optimistic
with the planning and validation phase, we wouldn't be as far
as we are today. We need to put it out there and communicate
most effectively. We plan to have monthly meetings with staff
members of the Preservation Commission to feed them
information, to give them issues that need their resolution,
and hopefully they can bring back to us some kind of resolution
themselves.
VISITOR CENTER TIMELINE
Mr. Pastor. I want to understand the timeline. Right now
you have a letter of intent?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
Mr. Pastor. What is that going to do?
Mr. Hantman. Basically we are having the General Accounting
Office review the full contract that has been submitted by the
consulting team. We need to have them sign off on that before
we sign a full contract. But we know the full scope of work. We
have been negotiating with them and before we go ahead--this is
basically to get them started before we sign the full contract.
But we have full intention and all expectations that their
numbers are within the ballpark that we proposed and that we
will be able to proceed with the full design development phase.
Mr. Pastor. How much time do you think that is going to
take, just to get the letter of intent okayed and issued and
signed?
Mr. Hantman. That is basically a done deal. We are working
in parallel on a lot of these things, so we are in good shape.
Mr. Pastor. So we have 6 months left to do the design.
Mr. Hantman. Design development, correct.
Mr. Pastor. That would put us what? Maybe July?
Mr. Hantman. Correct.
Mr. Pastor. And we are not here August. We are gone the end
of September.
Mr. Hantman. Which is why the review and approval process
should be a continuing line of communication. It shouldn't be a
surprise at the end of design development. In the interim, we
will be communicating clearly with the members of the staff
upon the issues we are discussing and need resolution. By that
point in time, there should be no surprises at the end.
Hopefully, we will get a clearance to proceed directly on to
construction documents while the Congress is not in session.
Mr. Taylor. I envision if we are called upon as a
committee, we could communicate with you, even past session,
through the end of the year. But you are right, we are going to
have to beat a lot of schedules.
Mr. Pastor. First of all, you are going to have the problem
of having us come to an agreement. You know how hard that is.
How many members?
Mr. Hantman. There are 18.
Mr. Pastor. So you start with that. That will take a good
deal of time. There is a potential of slippage, and I am just
trying to be more realistic than optimistic because we may end
up being criticized for being too optimistic and come next year
we may not have accomplished the goals that we have set for
ourselves. And so that will be another Roll-Call article, and
you will be criticized, and here we go again. I am just saying
let's be more realistic, because I know it is very difficult to
get 18 members to agree, especially since most Members are
going to be gone for most of the year because this is election
year also.
Mr. Hantman. I detected a very positive sense from most of
the Commission, most of the staff that I have certainly talked
to. It seems as if a lot of people really want this to happen.
I think it is important to remain optimistic, to be pushing the
envelope, if you will, so that we can make deadlines that make
some sense. It is achievable, and hopefully we can work hand-
in-glove on an ongoing basis, so there are no surprises, so we
can get these approvals in a timely way.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis?
SUBCOMMITTEE SERVICE
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be with you all here today. You wouldn't
necessarily be aware of this but for the first dozen years of
my life on the Appropriations Committee, I have had the
privilege of serving on this subcommittee. They kicked me off
for a number of years because I used to give Architects of the
Capitol such a difficult time.
Mr. Hoyer. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lewis. Certainly I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Hoyer. He understates the case. He and I had this
conversation. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Fazio were working together for
some years on this committee, and in my opinion, they are the
two individuals most responsible for much of the progress that
has been made with respect to the legislative arm of government
and with respect to maintaining the integrity of our systems
here on Capitol Hill. So Mr. Lewis very substantially
understates his role. He was a major contributor.
Mr. Lewis. I thank my colleague very much for that. I must
say, reminiscing a bit about those some-dozen years, it was
during that time that we completed the Madison building and
went about that magnificent restoration of the Jefferson
building, watching for 15 years during the time I was here, the
west side of the Capitol held up by those 20 by 20 ugly poles,
the west front was finally completed after no small amount of
controversy. I am reminded of that as Ed Pastor is talking
about the problems of timing and agreement relative to the
Visitors' Center. We had more than one go-around on the west
front, some of which weren't nearly as successful as let's say
the Jefferson was. But in the meantime, the work that you are
about is really very, very important to all of us who love and
use, and want the public to enjoy this magnificent setting. A
former librarian--architect, excuse me, said to this committee
while I served on it, this will not be a permanent addition.
And I am speaking of a garbage collection bin built on the side
of the Cannon Building, and that was well over a decade ago. It
is well on its way to permanence. And I would really like to
have an answer as to whether that is going to be a permanent
restoration of the Cannon Building? And if it is going to be
permanent, I would like to know whether or not the identical
building on the Senate side is going to have a similar addition
to it.
Mr. Hantman. Perhaps two.
Mr. Lewis. Having said that, I welcome you here and
appreciate very much the work that you are about and will
follow on with questions about the Visitors' Center.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, sir.
Opening Statement
[The information follows:]
VISITOR CENTER FUNDRAISING
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you. On the $100 million, which is about
40 percent of the projected cost, do you know whether or not we
have started any efforts in that regard yet?
Mr. Hantman. Efforts on the fund raising portion?
Mr. Hoyer. Yes.
Mr. Hantman. I know that the Secretary of the Senate and
Clerk of the House were putting together a plan for the
Preservation Commission. I am not sure that they presented that
plan to the Commission yet.
Mr. Hoyer. Senator Dodd and I expressed a concern, as you
recall, about the affixing of names with respect to commercial
benefits. Obviously, we welcome the participation and
contribution. I don't believe it will all be paid with public
funds. I think you need to keep in touch with members closely
as to what kind of recognition there is for whatever sums are
contributed. As you know, the Library of Congress raises funds
and there was an issue as to how those funds would be
recognized in the Library itself. I think the resolution was,
as I recall, they would permanently affix them in the stone
facade of the building. I think that is an issue we ought to
keep in focus so that we don't make decisions on that without
giving proper consideration.
Mr. Hantman. That is a very real area of sensitivity. We
have discussed that. Clearly, we don't want golden arches or
revolving restaurants or things like that related to the
Capitol in any way. With respect to the Library of Congress, we
have been asked by the Joint Committee to come up with several
alternatives to permanent inscriptions in the stone and we have
submitted information for that.
Mr. Hoyer. I don't have any further questions, Mr.
Chairman, other than to observe that our Ranking Member, Mr.
Pastor, talked about optimism versus realism, and went on to
say with respect to the scheduling, we may be leaving before
the end of September. I will leave it to the Committee to
decide whether that is realism or optimism.
Mr. Taylor. There is this month, I think, a meeting from
the Committee for a fund-raising plan, the Preservation
Committee is going to be meeting this month so it would give us
a chance to work on it.
Ms. Granger, any questions?
Ms. Granger. No.
BOTANIC GARDEN
Mr. Taylor. I would like to go on past the Visitors'
Center. We have a number of issues with the Architect. First,
the Botanical Garden. We were there on one of the hottest days
of the year. I suggest we all go down today and sort of even
out the temperature. Could you give us an update on the status
of the Botanical Garden project?
Mr. Hantman. We have a contract underway; much construction
work has been done; a lot of the infrastructure is in. Our
contract goal was to have the building basically enclosed by
September of this year. We still expect that that, in fact,
will happen. We are working with the construction people right
now relative to the Palm House. There are some issues relative
to the delivery of glass and the timing when that will be
installed. We still think that entire building will be under
roof and fully enclosed. We also have a period following the
construction portion of the work for replanting and
acclimatization of the plants before a real grand opening would
occur. So we have several months after that September period,
which would then be bringing plants in for the Botanic Garden
function itself.
Mr. Taylor. How many months do you think?
Mr. Hantman. For the replanting, sir?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Hantman. We were projecting three months for
replanting. So hopefully by the end of the year we would have
the replanting done. We are trying to work on some of the
construction issues that are being slowed down now and see if
they can be done in concert with the replanting so we don't
lose any more time from there.
Mr. Taylor. After this major investment, we expect the
Garden to continue their traditional programs.
Mr. Hantman. There is a very wide series of programs that
are being planned in conjunction, certainly with the National
Garden, which is going to be built through privately raised
funds on the rest of the block with the Conservatory. So there
will be many educational-type of programs for children that we
will be able to broadcast from some of these facilities to
schools around the country. Many educational programs that
never could be carried on before are being planned now, sir.
ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
Mr. Taylor. You have asked for 70 additional positions,
including some custodial workers. Even though we have
transferred some to the Senate last year, were we too generous
in doing that, or are they going to give them back?
Mr. Hantman. I think what we are going to be doing is in
the markup, withdrawing those requests for the couple of extra
people because we are requesting at the same time dollars to
contract for day cleaning services for the restrooms. The
clarification is the custodians were nighttime cleaners. We
have never had an operation where bathrooms and public spaces
were cleaned on a daytime basis. Clearly, members have reported
with the high volume of visitors and traffic that we have in
those bathrooms, it is important that we do that. We are
requesting funding to be able to contract services during the
day not impacting the nighttime custodial workers at all for
those services. So those two people we were talking about were
redundant; that will be withdrawn.
Mr. Taylor. You have the 70 positions, about 4 or 5 percent
of your work force. It may be hard to get that type of
additional funding. Is visitation going up that much? How do
you justify increasing your work force by 5 percent?
Mr. Hantman. A good part of that, some 13 positions really
relates to our life safety division. As you are probably aware,
Mr. Chairman, we had hired a new director and a deputy director
who are with us today. We have Phil Tapper and Pennie Hardesty
who we brought on from, I guess, it was Goddard Space Center,
and I believe it was from the Air Force and they have come up
with a plan for appropriately staffing this new security life
safety type of group. I think the Congressional Review Board
has talked about staffing appropriately, so that we can move
our projects along. We can monitor them appropriately, make
sure that things are tested and maintained appropriately. So 13
of those positions are specifically allocated to this life
safety issue and we certainly can share an organization chart
and talk in detail about the roles of those people.
It is really not any one area throughout the agency, and a
good part of those people really relate to the Senate side as
well.
Project management is a very key area that we are also
proposing to bring people on for. We have many projects as you
know. Our plate is quite full with a variety of issues and
projects that we are doing on the House side and the Capitol,
on the Senate side as well. And we need to be able to plan and
coordinate that work, make sure that it is appropriately
allocated, that we are following through as necessary with
project managers as appropriate as well. So some of those staff
relate to project management needs as well.
Mr. Taylor. But you wouldn't be terribly disappointed if
that staff were contributing with the project itself, which
means it would come and go based on the completion of the
projects?
Mr. Hantman. This is exactly what we are proposing to do
with the Visitors' Center, and have begun to do with other
major projects where people would be charged directly to those
projects, that they would, in fact, be people who are brought
on for the term of the project as opposed to being permanent
employees. So we are using a combination of methods, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. I have a number of questions, but in courtesy
to the Committee, are there any questions as I move along, any
questions about what we have covered so far?
Mr. Pastor. I had some questions on personnel.
Mr. Taylor. Go ahead.
HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY
Mr. Pastor. In July of '99, you had, I think it was, nine
employees that felt that they were in a hazardous condition.
Coal dust was the problem. And they had tried to work it out
with some of your supervisors. On appendix 6, page 2, you have
environmental differential and what the process is. Where are
we with those nine workers and what was the resolution of it?
Because as I understand, the Office of Compliance had 30 days
to review the claim, so that would put them into August or
maybe September. What is the latest on it? Have they received
the hazard pay? Did we follow the steps here that you outlined?
What is the resolution?
Mr. Hantman. We can certainly get back to you. I don't have
the details on it. By the way, we had brought on a new head of
the power plant, and making sure that we can, in fact, keep all
of our life safety and security issues up to snuff on that, so
we are looking top to bottom of the organization there to make
sure that we address these life safety issues in a proactive
way and eliminate any hazardous potential hazardous conditions
at the time.
Mr. Pastor. On occasion I read about the morale, employees
feel like there is not a path of progression in terms of where
they can develop themselves, develop opportunities, and there
is still confrontation in some areas where minorities feel they
don't have a shot at different jobs. What is your assessment
right now? I go back to this article. We had nine African-
Americans working at the power plant and they tried to work it
out saying they were entitled to hazardous pay, and yet I would
think that it was important enough that somebody would know
what the resolution is. And yet I ask you right now and you
have no idea and will get back to me. Come on, guys.
Mr. Hantman. As to the whole issue of hazardous pay across
the campus, whether it is somebody cleaning windows on the
outside of the building or at the power plant, there never was
a policy relative to hazardous pay. That policy is in
development right now, so that we are fair across the campus
and have people, in fact, be able to be addressed in a manner
that they can appreciate and understand. We also have been
dealing with a lot of issues relative to change. I think that
is sometimes difficult for people to relate to, but we need to
do it in a fair and orderly way with methodologies and
standards that people can understand and were committed to
doing.
Mr. Hantman. I'm just being informed that settlement was
reached with the nine workers, and the basis of that settlement
was that they would not be getting hazardous duty pay, but the
safety issues were certainly cleaned up.
Mr. Pastor. Basically this hazardous pay and environmental
differential is being worked on or is it implemented?
Mr. Hantman. For every class of worker who comes into
potentially hazardous conditions, we are evaluating each one of
them in a fair manner to give them the hazardous pay when it is
appropriate, when it is a significant portion of their job and
we are following standard government procedures to incorporate
them and bring policies where policies did not exist before.
Mr. Pastor. That is inhouse?
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
Mr. Pastor. When do you think you might complete that?
Mr. Hantman. We're almost there on hazardous policy. I will
get back to you on a specific date and give you a draft copy of
what we are proposing.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer, do you have any questions?
Mr. Hoyer. I have questions on Office of Compliance. You
want to do that now? Separately?
Mr. Taylor. Further down.
CAPITAL BUDGET
I want to go on to the capital budget now. The capital
budget is $46.5 million. That includes 68 projects. That is up
almost 120 percent. Of course, last year we questioned the
capability of having the management available to handle it.
This expanding workload, and of course, not to mention money,
is probably going to be tighter than it was last year. Are you
optimistic in your management capabilities with this continuous
increase in projects? Can you maintain all the things that go
with it, the planning, design, and so forth? Could you speak to
that?
Mr. Hantman. Surely. I began to allude to that earlier, Mr.
Chairman. The concept of project management and how we bring
people on most appropriately. In fact, the planning group that
we have requested funding for to bring on is a key component of
that. Mike Turnbull has been heading up this effort of
evaluating how projects are managed. The architects, engineers
and construction people report directly to Mike, in fact. Did
you want to talk a little about that.
Mr. Turnbull. We have had an in-depth three-month period
right now, going through the whole organization, meeting with
staff and the jurisdictions that we deal with and getting
feedback and asking some important questions about what people
feel are important needs. We are going to be in a position
where we will be making changes within the organization to
implement projects in the future. I would be happy to sit down
with any one of you in the future to review what those policies
are.
Mr. Taylor. Have all the capital budget projects been
completely designed and had formal cost estimates based on the
designs been prepared? You know, what we had last year, and of
course, 3 years before was a situation where we would have
projects, Appropriations requested and they would all be out
for a long period of time. We changed that procedure last year,
and I expect we will follow it this year where we will look at
the projects requested and then try to handle it inside this
fiscal year what can be dealt with, and that is why as much
information as you can provide us in that area would be
helpful. Have we completed the design of those projects that we
had before us when we left the end of last year?
Mr. Hantman. The projects we bring to you, Mr. Chairman,
for construction funding have met the criteria. We took you
quite seriously on that. Whatever we are giving to you to be
funded that has drawings assigned to them as opposed to
replacing something in kind where it is not a drawing issue, we
have 100 percent design for those elements.
CANNON GARAGE
Mr. Taylor. How about the Cannon garage? We started out
with an estimate of $3 million and then we went to $9 million.
Is the $9 million based on a final design?
Mr. Hantman. The $9 million is based on a final design.
Mr. Taylor. How long will it close down the garage?
Mr. Hantman. We had originally proposed that the project
could be done in a way to inconvenience membership least. We
had proposed that it could be done in an election year cycle
such as the end of this year. Given the fact that the funding
is not at hand, we are requesting it for the following year. We
are talking about a seven-month period now that we would be
working on the garage itself.
Mr. Taylor. Where will the members and their staff park
during that period of time?
Mr. Hantman. We have been working with Pat Lanigan in the
Sergeant of Arms office and he has plans. We have been working
very closely with him to talk about the inconvenience and what
alternative locations there would be.
DOME REHABILITATION
Mr. Taylor. How about the dome rehab? There is no money in
the budget for the dome rehab. You are still using phase I
funds provided in the earlier supplement, about $7.5 million.
How is that project going?
Mr. Hantman. That project is going very well, Mr. Chairman.
We expected that the original scope of work for the project
will be done in the April timeframe. There are several other
issues that we need to address within the $7.5 million budget
which might take some of that work into the summer, but we
expect to be removing all of the screening and the work that
currently can be seen in the rotunda itself in that April
timeframe. The work is proceeding well. We have, as you know,
hazardous removal of lead based paint. That is being done in a
contained area.
What we are doing as far as phase II is concerned, though
as I indicated, we had four priority areas, including life
safety, project management, security, all of the issues related
to service to the Congress. We are proposing that we put
another year between us and phase II for the second phase of
the Capitol dome. Happily, during investigations in this phase,
we found that the structure is basically fine. It has been
built for the ages. There are no real problems relative to the
basic structure, but we think that we have higher priorities,
in terms as you pointed out before, in balancing workload, to
say that we can put off this project because we want to work on
life safety issues because there are fiscal considerations. And
this is a very major element of any budget, the second phase of
the Capitol dome. So we, therefore, think that another year
would give us the ability to get all of our information
together relative to actual cost. By that point in time we have
a good sense of what that cost is going to be.
DOME REHABILITATION COST
Mr. Taylor. What is that cost?
Mr. Hantman. We are talking about for the second phase
about $39 million is what we are talking about now and that is
an increase over what we had talked about before and the wisdom
shown by this committee in talking about a hundred percent
design really reflects on that because there were some major
issues that impacted the increase in our estimates at that
point.
Mr. Taylor. You estimate about $38.8 million and that has
gone up now.
Mr. Hantman. We are looking at approximately $48 million
now for both phases.
Mr. Taylor. Gone up by about $10 million. Why was that
extra cost needed?
Mr. Hantman. Most of that cost is directly attributable to
the issue of scaffolding and type of scaffolding. As you are
aware, Mr. Chairman, we had to close down the Rotunda for a
period of three weeks to erect the netting that we see up there
right now. It's difficult to do that, to get a joint resolution
of both Houses to do anything like that in the Rotunda. For the
next phase of work, if we were to do what has been done in the
past when the Apotheosis of Washington was repaired, and prior
work had been done in the Rotunda itself, we would have
scaffolding basically filling the Rotunda. We would have to
close it for 2 to 3 years. Clearly we have several presidents,
past presidents who have indicated they would want their--their
families would want them to lie in state in the Rotunda. If we
have gold medal ceremonies, whether it is for Mother Teresa or
Rosa Parks or Bob Hope, that couldn't be done during that
period of years. We brought to the leadership of both the House
and the Senate several alternative scaffolding methods, and
what we are recommending, and which they basically said to
proceed with, is a scaffolding method that would kind of mimic
what we are doing right now. It is hung from above as opposed
to putting scaffolding on the floor. This would allow us to
have ceremonies because clearly if a past president were to
die, we wouldn't be able to take down the scaffolding in the
two- to three-day period, and have the event there in any
event. We would be looking at a $4 to $5 million premium just
for the nature of the scaffolding on that.
We are also looking at humidity control systems which have
never been designed before up in the dome to avoid some of the
water runoff and condensation that occurs on steel. So that
costs more than the ballpark figure prior to its design.
So once again, coming back to the whole design issue, those
design documents are virtually finished. They will be finished
in another month or so waiting for the final results at the
close of the work in April, so we will give you a final number
when we come back to you for appropriations in the year 2002.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. For the record, please provide a more detailed
description of why the dome estimate has gone up by $10 million since
last year?
Response. the production of construction documents for phase 2 of
the work began early in 1999 and continue through 1999 leading to the
final submission by the consultant team at year end. Prior to that
time, the cost estimate was based upon conceptual thinking in many
areas of this unique project. As the concepts were converted to actual
design options, leading to decisions and detailed design solutions, the
overall cost estimate increased. The most prominent elements of the
increase are as follows:
Scaffolding options were determined and designed. Both the exterior
scaffolding scheme and the two options for interior scaffolding--a
traditional system rising from the Rotunda floor and an elaborate
structural shell constructed well above the Rotunda floor--were
considerably more expensive than earlier anticipated. Also, in order to
preserve an open Rotunda suitable for ceremonial events, the
Congressional Leadership selected the more expensive of the interior
scaffolding schemes.
Both the updated air conditioning system for the Rotunda and the
new dehumidification system for the interstitial space between inner
and outer shells of the dome were more fully defined and priced. The
earlier cost estimates on these systems were too low.
A substantial increase in the number of cast iron defects
identified and documented resulted from the paint removal and survey
process in phase 1, now approximately 65% complete. Earlier estimates
and extrapolations were inadequate. Phase 1 work will be completed in
May 2000 and all cast iron defects will have been identified. As a
result, there may be further adjustments in the final project cost that
will be submitted with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The unit cost estimates for estimates for lead-based paint removal
and repainting in phase 1 were deemed too low based upon the bids
received. Consequently, these unit costs were raised during 1999 in the
cost estimates for phase 2.
The cost of the District of Columbia lead permit fee for phase 2
was inadvertently omitted from early cost estimates.
As a result of the one year delay in seeking funding for phase 2--
fiscal year 2002 instead of the originally planned fiscal year 2001--
the total cost of the project was further escalated.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE PROJECTS
Mr. Taylor. You started several police projects; off-site
delivery system, training facility, and vehicle maintenance.
All total, these projects are estimated to cost over $30
million. Has every project been designed?
Mr. Hantman. All of the funding that we are requesting at
this point in time is for design funding and land acquisition
for these projects. So no detailed design has been done. In
concept, the magnitude of space needs for training, for off-
site inspection, for all of these issues have been determined
through a study, but there is no design to key into anything
but a magnitude of potential cost at this point.
Mr. Taylor. We already have facilities for each of these
uses. Why do you assign them 1A priorities?
Mr. Hantman. As a member of the Capitol Police Board, I
work very closely with the Sergeant at Arms of the House,
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and Chief Abrecht and the entire
police force. We created a multidisciplinary
interjurisdictional task force to do this study, and perhaps
the Chief would be better able to respond to that than I am at
this point.
Chief Abrecht. There are basically three major projects
that are sought for design on this--our training academy, the
off-site delivery center, and the vehicle maintenance facility.
Truthfully, we have no training facility at the present time.
We operate out of two transformed office spaces in the Ford
Office Building. They call it a training academy. It is truly
ludicrous for a police agency of over a thousand officers. We
have no training facility worthy of the name.
We are also using some space out at Anacostia at the naval
air station which we have obtained for a short term while we do
the buildup.
So we essentially have nothing near the sort of training
facility that would be required for a police force of this
size. We have no facilities for doing any type of scenario
training where you actually teach the officer how he would
actually--essentially classroom space is all that we have. We
have no space where you can mimic--where we could build, for
instance, an entrance to the Capitol and show an officer how to
position himself, how to screen someone. None of those
facilities is available. So the training facility is just--we
are in dire need of a proper training academy for a police
force the size of this agency.
The vehicle maintenance facility is a metal shed that is
rodent infested, insect infested, has one bay and is
essentially falling down. The insulation falls down from the
ceiling onto the mechanics on a regular basis; and, as we have
been told by the Architect, it is essentially irreparable. It
needs to be replaced.
The off-site delivery facility is an old warehouse, a meat-
packing plant if I remember correctly, that is also way past
its prime. It can't be expanded. It is not owned. It is leased.
So you would have to put money into a leased facility, and we
have pushed it to its very limits by bringing the House side on
board for screening the House freight which was direly needed
and a wonderful addition to the House security.
We no longer allow semitrailers full of what we don't know
into the loading bays in, for instance, the Rayburn Building.
To do that we have strained this facility way past its
capacity.
Those are basically the issues with the three facilities
that we are seeking most rapidly to replace.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
Mr. Taylor. Have you considered privatization for vehicle
maintenance?
Chief Abrecht. We are. We are looking at the possibility of
moving some of our fleet to a lease status. We are continuing
to discuss that. That is a possibility.
Mr. Taylor. How many vehicles do we have? I assume this is
motorcycles and cars?
Chief Abrecht. We have over a hundred vehicles if you count
the motorcycles.
Mr. Taylor. Could you provide for the record a detail of
the total number of vehicles, motorcycles, and 4-wheel
drivetrucks?
Chief Abrecht. I would be glad to get it for you. I don't
have it off the top of my head, I am sorry to say.
[The information follows:]
Chief Abrecht. I believe we have over 80 four-wheel
vehicles. Some of it is very hard to get from the private
sector such as the installation of the electronic equipment,
the radios, and the red lights and all of that.
We also do some installations in vehicles that are not
owned by us. They are used to provide protection for leadership
and things of that nature.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chief.
RAYBURN CAFETERIA
Moving on to some of the other projects, the Rayburn
cafeteria, we received criticism during the floor debate last
year for including funds for the Rayburn cafeteria. Now, that
project was estimated at $3.4 million. Now you have it back at
$5.3 million. Why is it in the budget and why does it have a 56
percent increase?
Mr. Hantman. The Rayburn cafeteria renovations were
reintroduced in this budget at the request of the CAO due to
the continued need for physical improvements, customer service,
replacement of worn equipment and for compliance safety
systems. The $3.4 million was a target figure based upon
estimates, with no construction documents done at that point in
time. We now have construction documents which indicate that
the full scope of work originally defined would be up in the
range of $4.2 million based on our hundred percent drawings. We
had done a preliminary 60 percent estimate which indicated it
might be as high as $5.3 million, but we redesigned and re-
engineered to come back down as close as we could to the
original $3.4 million estimate.
What we have right now is the ability to proceed with the
greater portion of the project which is the Pizza Plus area,
the dining area and the exhaust system for safety purposes are
all within that $3.4 million, but funding for the kitchen
equipment could be deferred until a later time. We have talked
to the CAO about that so we can still do the majority of our
work within the $3.4 million.
CAPITOL POWERPLANT
Mr. Taylor. How about the powerplant? You want to convert
boilers 1 and 2 from coal to gas and oil. Will this save fuel
costs or add more operating cost?
Mr. Hantman. The expectation is costs will go up, not down.
We are talking about EPA criteria and meeting the criteria of
the District relative to pollution controls. So any time we
change from coal, which is our primary fuel at this point in
time, we decrease the amount of coal and go to either oil or
gas. That is an increase in price, and it is basically a
response to the EPA criteria and a necessity to cut down on
pollution from the plant.
Mr. Taylor. The operating costs you say will go up?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
Mr. Taylor. How much would you say?
Mr. Pregnall. Mr. Chairman, we are constantly evaluating
the break-even point in our fuel operations. We do not yet have
a handle on where the break-even point is and what it will
cost.
On the other hand, we have proposed maximizing our
flexibility of the plant by introducing co-firing agents of
boilers. That is the ability to use both oil and gas or coal
and oil in the same boiler at the same time. That way we can
meet both emission standards by using the cheapest fuels at the
time. But we do not have that analysis completed.
Mr. Taylor. You start a $4.4 million project to install oil
storage tanks. Do we store oil at the plant now and how much do
we store and how much will this add?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we currently store 200,000
gallons of oil at the plant based on our needs. That really
satisfies a 2-day need during a peak winter day to produce
steam for the needs of the Capitol Hill complex.
Our sense, sir, is that a 2-day supply is not adequate to
give us assurance that Congress will be able to complete its
work to stay in session if there were a strike, an oil strike,
if in fact there were a breakdown in our gas line and that
couldn't be delivered. What we are proposing is that we go to a
10-day backup, and that would give us a total million gallon
capacity, allow us to operate for that period of time so
hopefully we could solve whatever problems we might have in
terms of delivery problems or gas line breakage, things of that
nature. We just don't think that we have an adequate capacity.
Mr. Taylor. What is a unit of oil versus a unit of gas at
this time, a comparable unit of gas?
Mr. Pregnall. You are talking about the cost of BTU?
Mr. Taylor. Probably the best way to evaluate it.
Mr. Pregnall. We have not calculated the BTU but can
provide that for the record.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. Provide the total BTU costs for the record.
Response. Based on the actual fuel cost for fiscal year
1999, the fuel cost per million BTU's (MMBTU) for each fuel
was: $4.00 for oil, $4.70 for gas and $2.20 for coal. In
addition to the fuel cost, additional direct operating costs
would increase the coal cost per MMBTU's to approximately
$2.80. These costs do not include the additional capital costs
related to burning coal such as bag houses, the periodic
replacement of filter bags, and coal moving equipment. During
fiscal year 1999, the Plant used 1,270,454 MMBTU's of fuel.
This included 124,464 MMBTU's from oil, 248,780 from coal and
897,210 from gas.
As noted the above cost per MMBTU's is based on fiscal year
1999 costs. The average cost of oil for fiscal year 1999 was
$0.56 per gallon. This cost was unusually low. The cost of
fuel, especially oil and gas, varies during the year, normally
peaking during the winter months. For the week of February 6,
2000 the cost per gallon of fuel oil was $1.39.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT EXPANSION
Mr. Pregnall. For information, we are currently paying 91
cents per gallon of fuel oil, whereas last year at this time we
payed 56 cents for the same gallon. That cost has risen
dramatically. It should go down later in the year, but we
aren't exactly sure. Our costs for natural gas is currently 44
cents per therm. Last year's average was about 47 cents per
therm. So we are actually having a little cost savings there in
natural gas.
Mr. Taylor. You are looking for backup and you are talking
about storing 4.4 million plus trying to store and all the
things that you get into there. Gas, we found your study would
have to conclude this is usually cheaper and it doesn't require
the kind of storage that you are talking about on-line. Plus,
have you looked into the possibility of buying power and an
emergency backup power from utilities?
Mr. Hantman. All of our power is through Pepco at this
time. We don't produce power, just steam and chilled water. The
fuel is to produce the steam and chilled water.
Mr. Taylor. Can we find an alternative for that? Have you
thought about it?
Mr. Hantman. It is interesting----
Mr. Taylor. As a backup?
Mr. Hantman. For steam and chilled water. The Smithsonian
was actually having problems with that themselves in the
museum. They were looking at buying chilled water from us
because their capacity needs to be increased as well. I am not
sure that we have. We are just talking about if it is backup
capacity for electricity. The possibility of bringing in a
source from another direction has been looked into. There are
some significant dollars associated with that. We certainly
could report in more detail to you.
Mr. Taylor. That is an area we would like to go into.
[Questions from Chairman Taylor and responses follow:]
Question. Is this project essential? Would close management
of our inventories remove the need for expanded storage?
Response. The additional oil storage is needed assuming we
will have to move away from coal to meet lower emission
standards. The Plant's two large co fired (coal/gas) boilers
can only reach a minimum emission level of 0.35 pounds of NOx
per million BTU MMBTU's) burning the maximum 35 percent mixture
of gas. Current discussion projects lowering the maximum level
of NOx to 0.25 pounds per MMBTU in the next several years. To
meet the reduced emissions levels, the Plant will have to rely
on two fuels, gas and oil. Funding has been requested to design
an oil storage capacity of 1,000,000 gallons which will provide
service for 10 days. This amount was arrived at by anticipating
a weather event where we have a gas curtailment, and oil
trucks/rail cars cannot deliver due to road/rail conditions.
Other factors to consider are a gas line break, trucking and/or
rail strike, and an oil or gas shortage. This capacity will
provide a level of redundancy to assure continued steam supply.
If we do not have this capacity, it is possible that we could
have a service interruption.
Question. Do we have room for the expansion?
Response. Yes, there is sufficient room for additional fuel
oil storage at the auxiliary coal yard located to the south of
the main plant. The new tank(s) will be connected to a day tank
located at the plant by a pipe that will be approximately 750
feet long.
FIRE SAFETY
Mr. Taylor. The fire safety report you take up in the
Office of Compliance, and I think he had some questions, and I
do, too.
We know there was a recent report on fire safety. There
were a number of findings which seemed to indicate the need for
more aggressive followup by the Architect's Office to improve
fire safety systems and devices in the buildings. Would you
comment on these? How much of that report would you say is real
in the sense that it was in reality or how much it may state
what is actually going on? Could you comment on the findings?
Mr. Hantman. First of all, let me say that I am very proud
of the significant progress we have made over the past several
years in improving fire safety throughout all the buildings in
the Capitol complex. We have made great strides in this
priority area, and clearly there is a lot more work to be done.
We are proceeding along the roads that you had talked
about, Mr. Chairman, in terms of requesting money to do
studies. Once we get studies done and we find out the issues
and are ready to go to detailed design, we come back to you for
funding for detailed design. Upon completion of that when we
have detailed design estimates, we then come to you for actual
dollars to do the work.
So this is a process of planning that we are getting into,
Mr. Chairman, that really hasn't been in existence in this
agency before. Patchwork quilts have been done; patches here
and there. What we are trying to do is develop a comprehensive
program that works on the Hill and in the interim make sure
that we are upgrading as we can in the short run.
For instance, let me note some of the year's highlights. I
think we have achieved an awful lot.
In the Cannon Office Building we installed over 2,000 smoke
detectors.
In the Rayburn Building we installed some 5,000 smoke
detectors that are going to be connected in the fire alarm
system in the coming months. We installed 28 emergency egress
doors, 368 permanent and many, many temporary battery operated
emergency exits throughout the building. We are in the bidding
process and will soon award a contract for the installation of
a sprinkler system for the Rayburn Building.
In the Capitol, we have installed some seven emergency
egress doors that never existed before, including the south and
the north doors with fine mill work in keeping with the
Capitol's quality finishes. We installed temporary battery
operated emergency egress lights throughout the Capitol,
firemen's phones in five of the elevators in the Capitol, and
42 rooms have been renovated, with the issues of smoke
detectors and potential sprinkler areas to be tapped into.
A lot of studies have been done, Mr. Chairman, and are
being done and concluded over the next several months. What we
want to do is take these studies, bring on a design firm to
come up with a master plan to implement these studies and come
back to you for the funding to do so, so that we can have full
designs throughout the Capitol, throughout our House and Senate
Office Buildings that are as compliant as possible with current
codes.
One of the issues that we have right now is clearly that
the compliance report talks about a lot of issues that are
performance-- are not performance based but they are
prescriptive.
The NFPA just came out with a new set of standards. This is
the journal which is the magazine of the National Fire
Protection Association. They had a meeting in November of this
last year. In the front, the President's statement talks about
the fact that this is the first time that NFPA fully
incorporates a complete performance-based approach. It evolved
as a result of some of the earlier legislation, but now we will
have both the prescriptive approaches as well as the flexible
performance-based approaches to solve problems.
The compliance report talked about putting walls around
open monumental stairs in the Capitol. That basically would
turn what is a monumental building into a rabbit warren,
something with Sheetrock around major openings, the whole sense
of the building would be lost.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is come up with a
balance. There are things that clearly need to be done. There
are improvements that are being planned and that will be done
in the context of an overall master plan that makes sense to
preserve our heritage here up on Capitol Hill as well as to get
life safety issues done in a timely way.
I had an interesting discussion with Senator George
Voinovich just before the State of the Union last week. You are
probably aware before he became a Senator he was governor of
Ohio. And, last Thursday, there was an article in the Roll Call
that came out talking about the compliance report and some of
the issues there; and he was talking about how a lot of people
just don't recognize the amount of time that it takes to get
jobs done. He was saying, as governor of Ohio, their statehouse
is 400,000 square feet in space area. He vacated the governor's
portion of the statehouse for 3 years for them to do half of
the building, and then the House and Senate vacated for another
3 years to do the other half the building.
What I am trying to say is the work that we need to get
done is very difficult. We have a wonderful Congress here,
wonderful staff who work long hours. Part of the challenge of
the Architect's Office is to get work done without interfering
with the work of the Members and the staff and to get it done
at nighttime during breaks is very difficult to do, especially
in landmark buildings such as the Cannon, the Russell, the
Capitol Building itself.
So a lot of points were brought up in this compliance
report, points that we are aware of, that we have studies going
on for at this point in time, and we need to move in an orderly
process to be able to implement that. Quite frankly, we may be
sitting here next year, the year after, the year after that
talking about enclosing monumental stairs, and I think we need
to have conclusions that don't impact the nature of these
historic buildings but still ameliorate some of the life safety
issues that have been raised.
FIRE SYSTEM TESTING
Mr. Taylor. I will commend you for the report you have
given us on progress.
What I was looking at, there were a couple of the concerns
raised including the lack of testing. Can you address the one
about testing? I believe it related to fire extinguishers and/
or sprinklers.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, if you refer to the minutes of
the meeting of last year, we brought this issue up with you at
that point in time. We basically said the Compliance Act, the
Congressional Accountability Act have so many new criteria that
people in our agency don't have the capability to handle that.
That is why we brought on new people from Goddard Space Center
and other areas. That is why we are requesting more staff to do
this work. The infrastructure to do this does not exist.
So, last year, Mr. Chairman, we requested funds to bring on
outside firms, and you basically gave us those funds. The
Senate gave us those funds. We are just about to let our first
contract for maintenance and testing of these elements, and we
are going to bring that out in the following months throughout
the entire campus.
Mr. Taylor. You got criticized for not testing the
sprinkler that hadn't been installed?
Mr. Hantman. What we are trying to do--any time an office
is available to us, what we try to do is inconvenience members
and staff once. So if we were to come into this room if this
room were to be vacated for a period of time, we could come in,
put in life safety systems, stub out a sprinkler head in this
room, detectors as well for the ultimate zoning of this section
of the Capitol. We can't hook up the sprinkler head in this
room until all the rooms in this area basically are done so we
can have a single point going back to panels to turn them on.
The infrastructure needs to be done. We are chopping walls to
run conduit.
Mr. Taylor. What I am asking, did you get criticized for
not inspecting those things that haven't been installed, in
fact, they haven't been connected?
Mr. Hantman. That is correct, sir. Amita Poole is our
superintendent----
Mr. Taylor. Are we testing the compliance department for
competency?
Ms. Poole. Many of the fire alarms that are installed in
this building are installed in what we call the zone fire alarm
system, which means they are required to vacate an entire area
to be able to install all of the fire--smoke detectors. As we
go into the rooms, we do install smoke detectors. Sometimes
they are not--a whole zone is not provided to us to complete
during a recess period. It is not vacated. Therefore, we may
install three or four fire smoke alarms in an area and wait
until the next recess when we have the entire zone available to
us to go ahead and install the remainder of the smoke
detectors. In a sense the smoke detectors that are still up
will not be operational until the remainder of the smoke
detectors are completed. So, yes, the Office of Compliance did
look at partial smoke detectors being installed and said they
were not operational.
Mr. Pastor. Could I have a question on that?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Hantman. Just one clarification, sir. There is no
question about that, in taking our staff and being--
concentrating on areas of installing these systems prior to
hooking them up, some of the testing has not been able to be
accomplished by the existing staff that we have right now. In
that sense, the compliance report is not incorrect. That is why
we are bringing on outside firms to do the testing and the
maintenance. We just don't have the capacity.
Mr. Taylor. Do they coordinate with you? I mean, these are
not foreign entities. There ought to be a coordination as to
what you are doing. Certainly if we get a report it ought to be
that we are not working hard enough or fast enough, not
something that would assume us to be idiots.
You have a question, Mr. Pastor?
RAYBURN BUILDING FIRE SYSTEM
Mr. Pastor. I am in the Rayburn Building on the fourth
floor. I think it was 3 years ago or two and a half years ago
when they rewired if not all the Rayburn most of it because you
don't see the people there at night hanging the wires, doing
the infrastructure. At that time they installed what I think
are smoke detectors. I can't tell because they are covered. And
it has been about a year and a half, maybe longer, where there
has been a sign ``not in service'' pasted on the device.
Now, I have not seen at night--and I stay here long nights
doing my work, looking at the recycling program and things like
that the work that you saw two, two and a half years ago where
people were there taking ceilings off but yet the smoke alarm
system is not in service. My question is, what is the problem
so I have a better idea of what's happening?
Mr. Hantman. The basic system in terms of its distribution
has been installed. We are getting panels in that all of these
and remote points will be hooked up to. There have been issues
relative to the Y2K problem of the panels being in conformance
with the Y2K. We have a number of months yet before we can get
this equipment in so we can hook the systems up.
Bob Miley, do you have some more information on that?
Mr. Miley. You're absolutely correct as far as the fire
alarm panels.
Mr. Pastor. Where are those panels going to be?
Mr. Miley. They are in the basement area of the building.
There will be an enunciator panel in the Rayburn garage
entrance for the police to monitor.
The reason there has been probably a longer gap in your
area than others, we started at the top of the building and
have worked our way down. In that process we have installed
over 5,000 of those detectors so that the minute the fire alarm
panel is ready, we will have the detectors in and wired.
Now, the other major accomplishment----
Mr. Pastor. When do you think you will have the panel in?
Mr. Miley. Right now, it looks like it is going to be in
the neighborhood of 4 to 6 months before that will be
functional for various reasons.
Mr. Pastor. Give me one.
Mr. Miley. Well, there was funding requested through the
Y2K program to do some of the upgrading of this panel. That has
still been the process in the works.
The availability of people reframing these fire alarm
panels is very difficult, too. Phil Tapper, our fire protection
head, may be able to add some more to that.
But one of the other things I want to note in the Rayburn
Building that you didn't have this time a year ago, we do have
a building wide fire alarm system which is now functional,
which we didn't have before, with a series of pull stations and
alarms and strobe lights throughout the building that will
alarm--centrally alarm any point in the building when we pull
them. There is a pull station at every stairwell now that is
active.
Mr. Pastor. But I have seen a number of alarm systems where
they are covered over but not in service.
Mr. Miley. That is the old pull station. The only reason
those have not been removed is because there is a study under
way by our consultants to see if we need additional pull
stations. This system was installed for a design that was
probably 4 to 5 years old. There is some question as to whether
we need additional pull stations, and we may want to use some
of the old stations, some of the old pull stations.
Mr. Pastor. Because right now, with the new system, you
have one per hall pretty much. If you go down the corridor you
have one and if you were to put the second one, the old system,
back in operation, you would have two. And the old system
pretty much has the pull station right in the middle of the
corridor where your new system is pretty much to the end of the
corridor.
Mr. Miley. Yes. That is what the consultant is looking at
right now, to see the feasibility of reusing that conduit in
that location for the additional pull stations.
Mr. Pastor. Could I make another suggestion? And this is
only the Rayburn. There is the exit door at the basement. You
have to push the bar and hold it for 30 seconds. And if it is
not held for 30 seconds it is not going to open. The directions
you have--and maybe I just don't read well, but you think a
person about my reading capacity would understand it. It is
very difficult to understand what you have to do. You might
make it easier. Because if someone is going out, they are going
to be banging it and then it is not going to open. Maybe the
instructions might be a little better to have them hold it for
30 seconds and the alarm will ring and it will open.
Mr. Miley. That is under way also. Until such time as the
complete fire alarm panel is up and activated, at that time you
will not have to participate. If there is no fire alarm in the
building and you have to evacuate, the doors would immediately
release. This interim there will be some additional signage to
clarify that.
EMERGENCY EXITS
Mr. Taylor. Let me ask two quick questions and turn it over
to the rest of the committee now.
The report I found noted that the police didn't seem to
know how to operate the emergency exits. If that is true, tell
us why it is true. And then they also questioned whether the
kitchen workers know how to operate the fire suppressing
equipment and how you account for those two things. Could you
answer those two, one and two?
Mr. Hantman. Surely. Chief, did you want to talk to the
police?
Chief Abrecht. It is not for lack of trying that the
officers don't understand it. We have done about four different
things to teach the officers. This is sort of anecdotal
statements that the Office of Compliance made.
We have gone down to every roll call Mr. Greeley has with a
mock-up of one of these doors with the push bar on them, shown
them how to work on two separate occasions and are doing a
third cycle of it now, having read the report.
We are also preparing a videotape that will show it one
more time. And today I issued a written directive explaining it
line for line, going on for several pages, to each officer for
whom each will have to sign for, that they have received this
document and that they know for a fact how to open an alarm
door. It doesn't seem that complicated to me, but I am afraid
that the officers apparently continue to report that they don't
know how to operate these doors.
Mr. Hoyer. Could we have a training session for those----
Mr. Taylor. I am concerned. You issue these people guns and
have them perform a number of highly important security
responsibilities. Are they being over tasked?
Can you tell us about the kitchen workers?
Mr. Hantman. Training had been given to the kitchen workers
originally but the staff has turned over and need training as
well. These life safety systems, these emergency systems are
essentially automatic, but there is also a backup button that
staff needs to be trained on. In fact, the CAO has had his
staff go in and train the people of Guest Services, Inc. so
that they will know what to do and how to do that, and we are
going to make that a part of our quarterly maintenance and
testing service and will bring people on to do this so it
doesn't fall to the CAO to do that. Part of the problem, of
course, is that Guest Services needs to tell us when they have
a change in personnel so we can train those people
appropriately.
Mr. Lewis. Excuse me. Have we had fires in the kitchens
where this lack of understanding has been a problem? Have we
never had a fire in the kitchen?
Mr. Hantman. The suppression equipment worked fine on that.
It is automatic. So the question is, is there an overriding
manual button if the automatic doesn't work, and that is what
the training needs to be for.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REPORT
Mr. Taylor. Could you place the compliance report record
and your response and especially the status of each finding in
the record?
Mr. Hantman. We certainly will.
[The information follows:]
As was discussed at the hearing, our staff is actively
working on corrective measures to resolve all issues identified
in the Office of Compliance report. Many of these issues, such
as relocating inappropriately stored hazardous materials, are
being resolved quickly with existing resources. As of this
date, approximately one third of the issues identified, which
can be resolved with current resources, have been resolved. All
of those remaining which can be resolved with current resources
will be corrected by the end of this fiscal year, most in the
third quarter. This is attributed to material and resource
requirements, access/scheduling, or need for further
information.
Issues such as the emergency exits, which are ``routinely
locked when Congress is out of session, or on weekends and
after visitors hours,'' require coordination with Capitol
Police, and in some cases, detailed design prior to
implementation of corrective action. As the Committee is aware,
there are several items in the report, which will take time to
clarify, design, and implement an appropriate correction. All
of the issues, such as the exits and fire barriers, identified
by the Office of Compliance were known to the AOC and
corrective actions were either underway or requests for
additional resources were submitted. In many cases interim
designs and corrective actions are being implemented prior to
long term permanent solutions. Examples of these can best be
seen in the Capitol where battery pack emergency lights have
been installed while studies and designs are being completed on
permanent emergency lighting corrections that do not impact
preservation of the historic infrastructure.
As the Committee is aware, funding for complicated
corrective actions was either in our FY00 budget or was
requested in FY01 and subsequent out-years. Each of these is
being reviewed to determine what is needed to accelerate their
correction. The AOC is also investigating lessons learned from
other historic facilities, such as the Statehouse in Ohio,
which recently underwent renovation. The AOC will be meeting
representatives from that project on March 1, 2000. Performance
based solutions are also being investigated to determine how
best to protect the infrastructure while maintaining its
historic significance. This is specifically being explored for
the Capitol, where monumental stairs cannot be enclosed without
drastically changing their appearance. Accelerating certain
elements of projects is also being investigated, such as
providing sprinklers and fire alarms in public spaces,
stairways, and hallways first to increase levels of protection
while not significantly impacting the business of government.
In closing, I wish to reiterate that my highest priority is
enhancing the safety of Members, staff and visitors to the
Capitol complex. The AOC continues to bring this historic
complex into conformance with current lift safety standards as
rapidly as possible, but this will take several years and
require significant investment of resources to achieve. I thank
you for keeping this issue at the forefront and for your
support and understanding as we move forward.
FIRE DRILLS
Mr. Pastor. One more question.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. Do we have fire training in terms of how to
evacuate for our staff? I have been in the Rayburn I don't know
how many years. I don't think I could tell you right now what
the process we would follow. I just wondered, is that part of
your plan? Are you going to be doing some of that?
Mr. Lewis. I remember when you were a child in grammar
school you had those exit drills.
Mr. Pastor. So many feet away from the sidewalk, couldn't
yell and scream.
Mr. Hantman. We initiated fire drills just over the last
year in concert with the Capitol police.
Did you want to comment on that?
Chief Abrecht. Our officers visit every office once a year.
We urge that each office is supposed to have a fire evacuation
plan for showing their people which way they are supposed to
go. We then have a fire drill once a year for each building. We
evacuate the entire building. We preannounce them and do it
every year. Meet with some member of the staff, give them some
brochures we have. I think we have made quite a lot of
progress. Obviously, it is not as good as it could be. Perhaps
we may need to do it more often. That is where we are now.
EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis, do you have a question?
Mr. Lewis. No.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Just an observation about the officers. I know
you were somewhat teasing. We have a very high caliber of
professional officers. But the Ranking Member, for whom I have
great respect, and a college graduate, and law school graduate,
says he has trouble understanding how to open those doors. I
haven't tried to open the doors, haven't read the instructions,
so I am sure I would be caught for at least 30 seconds in this
conundrum.
Mr. Pastor. The reason I went down there is part of the
report said the police officers were having problems in opening
these doors. I figured, how hard is it? I went down there--I
didn't hit it, but I read the instructions. I said, wow, this
great institution, they could improve the instructions on these
doors. You don't know what you have to do. And I think most
people would want to hit the bar and push out. Well, if you
read the instructions, you have to hold it for 30 seconds and
the alarm will go off and it will open.
Mr. Hoyer. I make an observation that our officers are
high-caliber people, and I am sure they are confronted with the
same problem.
Mr. Hantman. It is an interesting point.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me go on, Mr. Hantman, if I can.
Mr. Hantman. The signage, by the way, and the words are as
per required by code, which is why we've got to go to more
performance type of situations so those words need to clearly
say what they need to say.
ACCOUNTABILILTY ACT
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hantman, let me start with that now that you
have brought it up. We adopted the Accountability Act. There
was a great deal of hoopla about adopting the Accountability
Act in 1995 and how we were going to comply. We had already
established an inspector general, and the inspector general was
specifically charged with the responsibility of making sure
that we were doing what we said we were going to do.
Now, the inspector general has said that we have severe
problems. Let me ask you, first, if we were a commercially-
operating business in the District of Columbia, could we
continue to operate? Would we continue to have thousands of
people come into our institution or would our use and occupancy
permit either be suspended or be put in jeopardy for a period
of time?
Mr. Hantman. If we were a private firm commercially
operating in the District, we would have had 30 years to comply
with OSHA and 60 something years to comply with the Fair Labor
Standards Act, all of these issues that came in with the
Compliance Act.
As you point out, the legislation passed in 1995 took
effect in 1997 just when I became Architect of the Capitol. In
the last 3 years we have made an awful lot of progress I
believe in moving along in these areas. We have accomplished a
lot. Appendix A, by the way, appended to our testimony today
talks about a lot of those achievements.
You heard Bob Miley and Amita Poole talk about some of the
issues we are dealing with, some of the studies we have under
way. If we in fact wanted to retrofit these buildings, as I
pointed out earlier, we probably would have to vacate them to
do them in a short period of time. If we were to be closed
down, if we were held to the strict criteria of all the other
operating buildings, you probably would be closed down.
Mr. Hoyer. The answer is yes. I understand the
impracticality of doing that.
Let me also disabuse you of any concept I might have that I
am holding you personally responsible. We had a fire in Jim
Wright's office in 1987. I think he was speaker, so it would
have been '87 or '88. Curt Weldon, Republican, properly raised
a substantial issue about whether or not we were taking
significant and appropriate actions to ensure the safety of our
employees and of the visitors to this Capitol. The conclusion
was that we were not. This, Mr. Hantman, was long before your
tenure, and under both parties. This is not a partisan issue.
My concern is, though, that if you read the inspector
general's report, as I know you have, and they spent a
substantial amount of time and they included experts with them,
there are substantial problems.
I happen to have an office on the 7th floor of Longworth. I
don't happen to have it. I fought like the devil for two and a
half years to get it. I really like it. Thank you, Mr. Miley.
The fact of the matter is, though, I hadn't thought about
it, but the stovepipe that I have coming from the basement to
the 7th floor, which is known as the stairwells, would in fact
preclude my employees from that very neat plan that we have to
exit our offices and go not to the elevators but go to
stairwells. Well, if there is a fire in the basement, they are
going to find the stairwell filled with smoke almost
immediately. That is what the inspector general said.
I read the report that said you could have two doors that
come in and close automatically in a fire. I don't know how
much that would cost, and I don't know how that would look,
although they say from a distance of five feet one can't see
it.
That is not the issue. The issue is this needs to be raised
to a very high level of concern.
I appreciate it when you say we have made progress. I think
we have.
As you know, as a result of the Wright fire we had
sprinklers installed throughout the Longworth Building. They
are now operating, I presume. They didn't go off in the fire we
had. Maybe they weren't supposed to go off in the fire we had
just recently last year, 2 years ago. But the fact of the
matter is you are the person responsible to ensure as quickly
as possible that this institution is as safe as we can make it.
You need to request such sums as can be efficiently and
effectively spent as quickly as they can be spent. And if you
don't raise this issue to a high level, what will happen has
just happened. Some report will come in, and it will appear
that you are not concerned.
I don't believe that. I believe you are very concerned.
Again, disabuse yourself of that. It is not accusatory. We as
an institution have to raise this to a very high level so that
we do address it as a critical need in the short term. And if
we need to appropriate another $50 or $100 million, with all
due respect to the Visitors' Center, it is more important first
to take care of the safety of the people who work here and
visit here than it is to have the Visitors' Center.
Now, I don't think we need to make that choice in the
richest nation on the face of the earth. That is the good news.
But we need to apply ourselves as quickly as possible in that
context.
Have you made a determination as to how quickly you could
bring us into compliance? You say some people have 50 years or
25 years. I don't think OSHA has been in being for 50 years.
Mr. Hantman. 1970.
FIRE SAFETY COMPLIANCE
Mr. Hoyer. I take your point that you had some period of
time. The fact is that is going to be irrelevant if we have a
fire in one of these buildings and somebody gets killed.
We have been lucky. We were very lucky with the officers.
Let me tell you, the officers who responded, our officers do an
incredible job. In response to that fire, they didn't know what
the materials were burning, whether they were hazardous. They
didn't know the risk they were taking, but they took the risk.
They took the risk to knock on my folks' door, because there
was no alarm system going off, and saying you need to get out
of the building, and they were down in the smoke. As you know,
some of them went to the hospital.
How quickly could we come into compliance if we had the
resources necessary, and how many resources are necessary?
Mr. Hantman. That would be a building by building issue,
with this building being the most difficult, obviously.
One of our issues here in the Capitol clearly is access.
Despite the fact that Ms. Poole was able to do 42 rooms in the
building this year, clearly we haven't got ten access to many
of the meeting rooms, many of the offices. How we chop these
walls and get the sprinkler heads and detectors in is a real
challenge.
If we had reasonable access, we think that, first of all,
the studies that are under way right now are going to feed into
an overall master plan. We don't know where we would run risers
at this point in time because the walls are not continuous
running up in the Capitol.
The idea of being able to clearly get full zones to work,
which I mentioned earlier, is a problem. We think we need
probably about a 4-year time period for design in this building
and maybe a 10-year construction period based on the level of
accessibility we have right now.
I, frankly, don't think that we need to vacate the building
as Ohio did. They had just built a new building, and they were
able to move people out in vacant space at that point in time.
The Dirksen Senate Office Building is a project we have
under way right now where we are vacating a floor at a time. We
are taking two senators and a committee or two committees and a
Senator. We are moving them out to occupy turn around space
that we built in the Russell courtyard, in the Dirksen
conference rooms and things of that nature. We are moving along
very well in a multiphase project.
For the House Office Buildings we probably need another 2
years worth of design. And----
Mr. Hoyer. Excuse me. This could be done parallel so----
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Mr. Hoyer. When you say another 2 years, 2 years but
running contemporaneously?
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. We certainly can give you a more
detailed schedule on this, but what we are trying to do in line
with what this committee has very appropriately directed is we
are doing studies which are bearing fruit. They are being
completed soon. We want to take those studies, give them to
consultants, designers, so we can design the systems, get the
money from you folks to design them on the completion of these
studies and then essentially bid them over time. How many years
it takes us to actually do the construction work will be a
function of how much access we get to various parts of the
Capitol.
Mr. Hoyer. I have a number of specific questions, but I
will submit them for the record in the interest of time.
FIRE SAFETY COMPLIANCE COMPLETION DATE
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hantman, what I would request you to do, and
I think would be helpful for this committee and I think for all
the Members, if you could provide detail as you think
necessary, a statement of what could be done and the resources
that it would take to do it in the earliest possible-- with the
earliest possible completion date in compliance----
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Mr. Hoyer. Then we could make that judgment as to whether
or not we are going to pursue that as rapidly as could be done.
Mr. Hantman. One of the things we probably can do with some
of the systems such as exit signs in our buildings, although
our study, which is just about completed in the next month or
so, will tell us in the Capitol and other buildings where exit
signs need to be. The concept of designing signs, running the
conduit, finding out about the emergency generators and how to
operate them is going to take years. What we are doing is
putting up temporary signs in those locations as we get these
reports in that are basically battery operated so we don't need
to chop it. We don't need to worry about a transformer. Your
concern is my concern, sir. We need to make sure that safety is
implemented as soon as we can but in an orderly fashion also
for the long-term fixes.
FIRE SAFETY ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Hoyer. In terms of interim measures, for instance, I
just noticed, and you probably noticed as well, Mr. Chairman, I
am sure you did, that at the start of this hearing people
couldn't get in through that door. I thought about the report
here where those doors open inward and we had at least 10
people crushed there. And if there was a real panic,
notwithstanding the 30-second crash course on how to get out of
the door, they would all rush to the door, and they would find
that somebody was there jammed in so you couldn't open it.
People were rushing and you couldn't open it.
For instance, I just completed an addition on my house and
I had a number of doors changed in how they open because it
just didn't work with the addition. It seems to me that that
would be a relatively easy thing to do, to adjust those doors
so they open out as opposed to opening in.
Mr. Hantman. Well, clearly the configuration-- you bring up
an excellent point, sir. If those doors were to swing out in an
emergency situation or any situation, the corridors are so
narrow that we would end up causing injury to people as they
walked along on a day to day basis in the first place.
Whether or not we have enough room in this space to build a
vestibule in so as you swing out we have lost perhaps five feet
of space, that is something we can study, and probably in some
of the rooms it is relatively easy to achieve. What we would
like to do is kind of think out of the box for these solutions.
Rather than a prescriptive thing, thou shalt do this, we like
to say what are the alternatives that make sense and share them
with the Congress and see where we go from there.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. I know in the fiscal year 2000, we appropriated
virtually every dollar that you asked for, and in the last 6
years, we have appropriated $35 million for fire safety. You
might take a look at that and see wherever it has gone and so
forth.
But there has been adequate funding so far, but I agree
with you, in the areas where we need to make a change or
additions, we want to do it. But in areas where we are working
and the report is somewhat ignoring what is going on, then that
ought to be considered before we spend more money in those
areas.
Kay, do you have any questions?
Ms. Granger. No.
Mr. Taylor. We will take a recess. We do have the General
Accounting Office coming by. We thank you, sir, for your
report. We will take a recess until after the last vote.
[Recess.]
REPROGRAMMINGS
[A question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. For the record, insert all reprogramming actions
or other documents that required committee approval.
Response. The information follows:
[Questions from Representative Hoyer and responses
follows:]
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WITNESSES
DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL
GENE L. DODARO, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL
RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER
Opening Remarks
Mr. Taylor. The subcommittee will come back to order.
We will now take up the budget of the General Accounting
Office. The budget request is $402.9 million and 3,275 FTEs.
The funding includes $3 million that will be derived from
reimbursable programs.
We have the Comptroller General, the Honorable David
Walker, and several members of his staff with us today.
Welcome, Mr. Comptroller. We appreciate you being with us.
Would you like to introduce your staff?
Mr. Walker. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
To my immediate right is Gene Dodaro, Our Chief Operating
Officer; Dick Brown, our Chief Budget Officer; and Sallyanne
Harper, our Chief Mission Support Officer. They are the three
primary officers with us today. It is a pleasure for us to be
here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. You circulated a statement to the members of
the subcommittee, it will be placed in the record, but I will
yield to you for any summation or statements you want to make.
Mr. Walker. I will give you a very quick summary, Mr.
Chairman.
First, I think we had a very successful year in fiscal year
1999. We achieved about $20 billion in financial benefits and a
number of other accomplishments, which represents a return on
the investment of about $57 for every dollar that the Congress
invests in GAO.
We have a number of major initiatives under way. As you
know, our draft strategic plan, which we recently discussed,
fundamentally revised how we are going about our work to help
us and, frankly, to help the Congress. We have undertaken major
efforts to extend our client relations effort and to develop
and implement new congressional protocols. We have a pending
agency realignment which is designed to improve our efficiency,
our effectiveness and our flexibility within existing and
expected resource levels. We also have a number of major human
capital challenges that we must address, which are outlined in
my statement.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for an FTE
increase. Basically we are asking to maintain our purchasing
power, with a few targeted investments that are designed to try
to help position us to best serve the Congress in the future.
We are also noting that we expect to submit a legislative
request, working with our oversight committees, in order to try
to provide us more flexibility to realign the organization
based upon institutional needs and individual skills and
performance within existing and expected resource levels. I am
very hopeful that the request will be sent up in the near
future, and I hope that we can get congressional support for
it, Mr. Chairman.
With that, I would be more than happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The information follows:]
MANDATORY CHANGES
Mr. Taylor. Your budget is up $24.1 million, and a large
part of that is for normal salary-related increases and so-
called mandatory costs in the Agency's budget. Do you have any
discretion in these COLAs?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we do not under the current
legislative authority. We have to piggyback on the existing
executive branch rules right now, and, as a result, we don't
have discretion.
Mr. Taylor. If we were to decrease this to a $10 million or
$12 million increase, how would you administer the budget?
Mr. Walker. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what I
won't do. What I won't do is cut back on training, enabling
technology, or performance rewards, because that is what we did
over the last 6 or 8 years, and we are paying a big price for
it. I think we have to look hard at what additional
efficiencies we could achieve, and if we couldn't, we would
have to look at staffing levels. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we
are about 40 percent smaller today in FTEs than we were in
1992. Yet at the same time, I think it is important that
whatever the FTE level is, we need to invest in our people
through training, and enabling technology. Frankly, we have not
done that for a number of years, and we have to reverse that.
TRAINING BUDGET
Mr. Taylor. You have an increase of about $1.5 million in
training. What is your total training budget?
Mr. Walker. We had about $2 million in the baseline. Our
request would increase training funds to about $3.5 million,
which still is considerably lower than typically what you would
see for a professional services organization, which is, in
effect, what we are. That training would be targeted to
technical training and, frankly, to training designed to help
our change-management effort, to try to make the agency more
efficient, effective, and focused on results rather than
outputs. We also need leadership training and other types of
training to get our people to focus on things differently
things than they have in the past.
GAO NETWORK
Mr. Taylor. Another increase is the internal computer
network, and we put a good bit of money in that in the past.
Why aren't these fundings coming out of the base budget?
Mr. Walker. Good question, Mr. Chairman. You are correct,
you have invested from time to time in our information
technology area. Basically what we have, Mr. Chairman, is a
number of pent-up demands. We have reallocated a lot of our
resources, as many other agencies did, to Y2K. We also
reallocated resources to network stabilization and
responsiveness. We have certain significant software
capabilities that we need to upgrade, Microsoft Office being an
example. In addition, we have security issues that have to be
addressed. We also need to comply with existing guidance for
disaster recovery efforts.
We are not looking to increase our baseline but to target
investments for these specific things.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that one of Sallyanne
Harper's top priorities will be to take a hard look at our IT
operations including internal and external personnel. We need
to take a fundamental relook at IT as to what we are doing and
how we are doing it, and we are committed to doing that over
the next year.
Mr. Taylor. There are software upgrades in two portions of
the budget, $800,000 in miscellaneous items and $1.7 million in
furniture and furnishings. Now, why does that one activity
require two different funding sources?
Mr. Walker. My understanding is one of them has to go to a
certain code, and I would ask Mr. Brown if he could provide a
little bit more detail on that.
Mr. Brown. One set of software comes through a contract
that we have with an external firm to supply ADP services
including software. So therefore, it is classified as an
external contract. We can purchase software or just about any
other ADP service through this means. The other source is for
software, we purchase directly. That falls into a separate
classification, which is specifically for direct purchases
rather than purchases made through an outside contractor who
may be providing other related services.
CONTRACTING
Mr. Walker. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that, I know that
you have had a long-standing interest in the contracting issue,
to the extent that we are looking at what we might be doing
through contracting. As you probably see in our submission, our
contracting for mission-related operations has almost doubled
between 1999 and 2001. So we are trying to make effective use
of contracting where it makes sense.
Mr. Taylor. Please provide information on GAO's use of
contracting for the record.
Mr. Walker. We would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The following chart displays GAO's actual and estimated
contract costs for fiscal years 1999 through 2001.
GAO CONTRACT SERVICES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001
Type of contract services actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission................................ 5,243 9,975 10,459
Administrative Support:
ADP................................ 12,040 7,973 8,930
Building maintenance and operations 4,218 10,526 10,763
\1\...............................
Other support costs................ 7,751 8,123 9,568
--------------------------------
Total Contract Cots.............. 29,252 36,597 39,720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 excludes $6,685,000 in fiscal year 1998 funds used
to offset fiscal year 1999 costs for GA Building operation and
maintenance.
RENOVATION OF GAO BUILDING
Mr. Taylor. Can you bring us up to date on the building
renovation?
Mr. Walker. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. When is that scheduled to be completed?
Mr. Walker. Well, we expect the final renovation to be
completed in 2004. We have the Corps of Engineers who is
scheduled to move into our building in July of 2000. They will
have the entire third floor. We have renovated all but one-half
of the sixth floor, and as you know, Mr. Chairman, we are
trying to make effective utilization of what space we have.
That is why we leased space to the Corps of Engineers after our
downsizing, and we are trying to use the resources that the
Corps will provide us for rent in order to complete the
extraction of asbestos from the building, as well as to
completely renovate the sixth floor.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. Please provide the building renovation schedule
for the record.
Response. The remainder of the GAO Building will be
renovated in future years using rental income form our expected
tenant, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Army COE will
lease the entire third floor of the building beginning late in
fiscal year 2000. Our current plan calls for completion of the
GAO Building in fiscal year 2004 as shown in the following
chart.
GAO BUILDING RENOVATION SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...................................... Complete construction of 3rd
floor.
2001...................................... Peform demolition and
abatement on west side of
6th floor.
2002-2003................................. Continue infrastructure
improvements.
2004...................................... Renovate west side of 6th
floor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Mr. Taylor. Your budget mentions some legislation
proposals. Could you tell us what they are, and have you taken
it to the authorizing committee, or do you think it should be
put in this bill?
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking. We have
had a number of communications and expect to have more with our
oversight committees. We want to reach agreement with our
oversight committees on what we need, achieve their support,
and then the issue will be what legislative vehicle might make
the most sense.
The legislation seeks the ability to have the Comptroller
General, myself and my successors, be able to offer targeted
early-out authority to try to facilitate our realignment, based
upon our draft strategic plan, the skills that we need, and the
individual skills and performance of the persons involved. We
also are requesting modest discretion to allow some of our
technologists, IT professionals and possibly actuaries, to be
compensated under a senior pay scale, which the executive
branch already has. These individuals, frankly, aren't Senior
Executive Service members. On the other hand, some targeted
flexibility to pay them a reasonable sum, subject to overall
government caps, would be helpful in attracting and retaining
those critical skills.
We are also requesting more flexibility on how we handle
discretionary pay increases. For example, right now we have a
situation where we have the January COLA, and we have merit
pay. We would like to have more discretion to target merit pay,
based upon actual performance, which has not historically been
the case. We are also looking at a couple of other modest
things, but those are the major components. Mr. Chairman,
basically, we want to minimize our resource allocation request,
and at the same time we have to realign the organization for
the future. Therefore, if we can get some targeted, reasonable
flexibility, we think we can accomplish that objective. But we
have some constraints on us under current law that makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to do that.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, do you have questions?
AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT
Mr. Pastor. Yes, I do. As I recall last year, we talked
about there was going to be some self-assessment of the Agency,
and I think monies may have been appropriated, and one of the
things we were going to look at is the human capital.
Mr. Walker. Correct, Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. Then with some interest I read where right now
you are saying succession is one of your imbalances, and also
that because of the hiring freeze, your entry level, you are
very sparse at the entry level.
Mr. Walker. That is correct.
Mr. Pastor. And then I see your legislative proposal
basically is to do targeted buyouts, and then some recruitment.
Mr. Walker. Absolutely.
Mr. Pastor. I don't know what the last one is, but there
were three.
Now, are you still waiting to do your assessment, and so
these are things that you are just finding out, or you want to
finish the assessment? Where are we?
Mr. Walker. We have done a comprehensive assessment. One of
the things I would point out to you, Mr. Pastor----
Mr. Pastor. This one?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. That is correct. As you can see, what
that shows you is the shape GAO was. What page is that, Mr.
Pastor?
Mr. Pastor. Page 6.
Mr. Walker. Page 6. It shows you what the shape of GAO was
with regard to different levels in the organization in 1989
versus 1999, and you will see that we are very thin at the
bottom, and we are very expansive in the middle.
In addition to that, if you look at the skills that we have
today versus the skills that we need under our draft strategic
plan, there is an imbalance. Part of the problem, Mr. Pastor,
is that when we implemented funding reductions, the agency
froze hiring for 5 to 6 years and cut way back on training and
some of these other enablers. We need to reverse that. So, we
need to reinvigorate, and we have already taken steps to
reinvigorate our recruiting effort. We need to focus on
succession planning because 56 of our executives will be
eligible to retire in the next 5 years, and one-third of our
entire work force will be able to retire by that time.
Mr. Pastor. Is that band 2 or band 3 or up and down?
Mr. Walker. I would say that band 2s and band 3s are the
ones that would be most targeted, no question, as they are
obviously the higher compensated bands as well. So therefore,
to the extent that we can end up targeting those positions, we
have the ability to fill some slots at the less experienced
level with lower resource costs, and we might be able to use
some of those saved resources to try to do more in training and
some of the other areas without having to request additional
resources.
Mr. Pastor. I would say if succession is one of your
problems, and one of your solutions is targeted buyouts, do you
have too many of one kind of expertise or----
Mr. Walker. In some areas.
Mr. Pastor. It kind of seems like you are conflicted.
Succession is where you want to take somebody, mentor them and
make sure that particular skill is transferred, and yet by the
targeted buyout, you begin to wonder, well, what are we doing
here?
Mr. Walker. We do have some imbalances, Mr. Pastor. We have
a situation where in the 1980s, as an example, the government
and GAO were doing a lot in the area of national defense. In
other words, there was a tremendous defense buildup, and
therefore we built up in the area of national defense is an
extremely important area. We are going to have a significant
resource allocation in that area, but there is not as much
action going on in that area as there is, for example, in the
area of health or in the area of income security. Therefore,
one of the things that we need to be able to do is to create
more organizational flexibility. We need to be able to redeploy
such that we have the skills that we need--not the ones we
needed yesterday, but the ones we need today and tomorrow. So
that is why we are taking a very sophisticated approach to this
matter. That is why we need the flexibility.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Well, thank you very much.
For the record, we will insert all of the reprogramming
requests and the dispositions. We appreciate your comments, and
we look forward to working with you as the session goes on.
[The information follows:]
Response: GAO has no reprogramming requests to report.
FTE REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Pastor. I know you are closing, but----
Mr. Taylor. Go right ahead.
Mr. Pastor. Did your study show any additional personnel?
Because, you know, the freeze was killing you, I don't think
you did----
Mr. Walker. We didn't ask for FTE increases. Mr. Pastor, we
are trying to do everything that we can within existing
resource levels and authority to get the most out of the
resources that we have, and that was my commitment to this
committee last year.
After we do everything that we can, if we believe that we
still need resources, we will ask for them. But that is why we
need the new legislative flexibility, because current
legislation is a significant impediment to our ability to do
some things that need to be done without requesting additional
resources or FTEs.
Mr. Pastor. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro. We could lose some senior level people that we
would want to keep for succession planning purposes. This way
we can target to keep the people for succession planning, as
well as reduce staff costs and redeploy our resources.
Mr. Walker. Right now, the way things work to a great
extent, is based upon tenure, irrespective of organizational
need, individual skills, or the individual's performance.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
WITNESSES
WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
CHAIRMAN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE; MEMBER, U.S. CAPITOL
POLICE BOARD
ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL; MEMBER, U.S. CAPITOL
POLICE BOARD
GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
Mr. Taylor. We will now take up the U.S. Capitol Police
budget, which will be presented by the Capitol Police Board.
Chief Gary Albrecht is also here, or was earlier. I expect he
will be back in a moment.
Gentlemen, welcome. The Chairman of the Board is House
Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood. Welcome, as always.
The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is James Ziglar,
and is here with us.
The third member is the Architect, who just appeared before
us. Good to see you again, sir.
Chief, good to see you, appreciate you coming today.
Before we proceed, let me state the budget request that has
been submitted to the committee. Overall, the request is for
$110.9 million. It is for salaries, and $10 million is for
general expenses. These funds would support 1,611 FTEs, an
increase of 100 officers above the current level.
We have all of the statements that are being placed in the
record.
Mr. Taylor. I will call on the Sergeant at Arms if he or
other members of the Board would like to make a summation
statement or any other comments before we go into questions.
Mr. Livingood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
brief remarks to discuss some of the key points in our request.
I wanted to, first of all, let you know that Chief Abrecht
has announced that he will retire at the end of April. During
his tenure, he has led the Department through a significant
change. He has been credited with raising the professional
reputation and recognition of the Department. This was
accomplished, in part, in large part, due to his vigilant
leadership and guidance. But I think all of us on the Board and
in the community will remember Chief Abrecht for the strength
and compassion he showed following the death of the two
officers that were killed in 1998. On behalf of the Board, I
want to thank Chief Abrecht for his service to the Department,
the Congress and the American people.
Mr. Chairman, our annual budget request for the Capitol
Police is driven by a number of factors, and I will just
mention those briefly. First is the staffing level required to
provide the Congress, the public and the buildings an adequate
level of security in such an open environment. The threat to
the Capitol complex, the Members, their staffs, and the
millions of Capitol visitors can never be discounted as
hypothetical. Such threats have been acted on too frequently, I
am sorry to say, and continue to be made today. In fact, it can
be argued that the Capitol complex is threatened more now than
ever.
In recent years, the White House and other executive branch
facilities have acquired strengths in security barriers. As the
most visible and accessible symbol of United States Government
and American democracy, the Capitol is arguably placed in a
more exposed situation by those additional measures taken to
safeguard the President and the executive branch facilities. In
contrast to the physical security provided at the White House
and other installations, the Capitol complex relies primarily
on a cadre of police officers to provide the barriers against
terrorist attack and criminal intentions. To repeat, the
officers themselves are the main line of defense in security
for the U.S. Capitol.
Because of the open nature of the Capitol complex, the
access points of our building serve as our first line of
detection of a threat and the first line of defense in
protection against that threat.
With regard to the number of sworn officers, the 1998
security review concluded that given the nature of the Capitol
complex and the magnitude of our mission, we were severely
understaffed. We are currently in the process, as you are
aware, of hiring and training the first increment of 215
officers, thanks to the Congress and thanks to this committee.
Recently, the Capitol Police Board and the Department,
working in partnership, developed the first strategic plan for
the U.S. Capitol Police. The Board and the Department are
committed to ensuring that every aspect of that plan is
implemented, and we will adhere to a time line to measure our
progress and success.
I am happy to report, as you heard when the Architect
presented his budget, that they have completed the master plan
for the U.S. Capitol Police at the committee's direction. It
addressed those three major facilities that he discussed, the
training, the vehicle maintenance and the off-site. The Board,
all of us, support very strongly this master plan.
One thing I want to talk about just quickly, to just
reiterate the need for training. The efficiency of any
organization is dependent upon its level of training, knowledge
and skills of its personnel, and because of the complexity, I
think, and diversity of the mission of the Capitol Police, they
rely very heavily on providing high-quality training to its
personnel on a myriad of operational, administrative and
management functions.
Training is often cited as one of the most important
responsibilities in any law enforcement agency, and it serves
three broad purposes. One, well-trained officers are better
prepared to act decisively and correctly in a broad spectrum of
law enforcement situations, including threats against the
public, Members of Congress, or others within the buildings or
outside. Two, training results in greater productivity. And
three, it fosters cooperation, unity of purpose and overall
Department morale. The Board has endorsed the master plan and
feels it is imperative that the Architect be provided with
funding to begin implementation of the plan.
Finally, I would like to commend the men and women, myself
and the Capitol Police Board--all of us, would like to commend
the men and women of the Capitol Police for continually
performing their duty in a diligent and professional manner. I
want to thank Members of Congress and this committee for
funding and helping us with the security enhancement plan,
which is still ongoing.
Thank you for your time, sir. I have submitted a more
thorough, detailed statement for the record.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Do you have any comments, or any other Members
of the Board?
Chief Abrecht. Just briefly, if I might, first I would just
like to thank Mr. Livingood for his gracious remarks on my
retirement. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to
serve for 8 years as the Chief of the Department, and I know we
have accomplished some things, and I am sure there are things
left for my successor to accomplish as well.
Just to touch on perhaps three areas, one is the request in
our budget for an additional 100 officers to complete one of
the most important parts of the recommendations in the security
enhancement plan, and that is to staff every access point to
the Capitol and the office buildings with two officers. That
was one of the key recommendations of the two security reviews
that were done, and I really urge your careful consideration of
that request. I realize that it is expensive, but the security
of the complex is definitely undermined when you don't have two
officers at each entrance post, and that was the recommendation
that was made by the task forces.
The second item is the one Mr. Livingood alluded to, and
that is the need to address the three facilities that we have
discussed on several occasions; the training facility, and the
vehicle maintenance facility, and the off-site delivery
facility. One essentially doesn't exist, that is a proper
training facility, and the other two are in very dire
circumstances and seriously in need of replacement, really in
both cases.
Finally, just to mention the work we have been doing in the
financial management area. As you know, we have been concerned
for a number of years that a lot of our information systems in
the Department are in really terrible shape, and one of the
worst was the accounting system that we tried to use, which was
a very old, homegrown, home-built system. We made a decision
about a year ago now to get rid of that and to take our entire
accounting function to the GAO's system, provided by the GAO.
The GAO has been tremendously cooperative with us in making
that transition, and we are now on schedule to do that.
Effective October 1st, all of our accounting will be done on
the GAO's system. We will do a much better job of tracking our
finances and do a better job of accounting once we have
migrated there.
I would like to thank you for your support during my
tenure, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Do you care to make comments?
Mr. Ziglar. I just wanted to also add to the House Sergeant
at Arms comments about the Chief, that we appreciate his
service. He is a man of great integrity, and we are going to
miss him, and we wish him well in his retirement. He is going
to do a lot of community service, I understand, in the
neighborhood, and we may be calling on him from time to time to
give us a little sage advice. Thank you again, Chief.
Chief Abrecht. Thank you.
Mr. Hantman. I certainly concur with the two Sergeant at
Arms as far as Chief Abrecht is concerned and wish him Godspeed
in his retirement.
Just to echo what Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood mentioned
relative to the master plan report, it has been a comprehensive
study worked on for a long period of time in good cooperation
between the two Sergeant at Arms and between my office, with
good consulting firms brought in. So what we bring to you today
we do believe in, and we support the real need for the type of
facilities that were discussed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen.
For the record, I want to say, Chief, we appreciate the
service that you have given here at the Capitol. You are
leading a group of men and women who have one of the hardest
jobs, I think, in law enforcement. I have spoken before that
they have first the job of working with 535 prima donnas who
are trying to do the public's work in this area. At the same
time you are doing that, you have to work with the leaders from
all over the world who come here to appear before committees,
as well as leaders in our country, the President and so forth,
who come here to come to the Capitol to speak or to make
appearances. And you accommodate some 9 million visitors who
come here to see the workings of the people's government, and
that is also important.
So you have one of the most difficult jobs of any law
enforcement agency, I think, in the country, and the fact that
you have done it so successfully, and while what happened a
little over a year ago was a tragedy, and we all regret it and
certainly commend the sacrifice of the men who were there, it
shows that you were doing your job. Because obviously we cannot
control everything around us, but you did what had to be done,
and it didn't go any further, and we appreciate that. And I
think that has been said many times in the last 18 months, the
sacrifice that was made by your Department.
So thank you very much for what you and your members do. I
hope that they will get our intentions passed on for the fine
work they do.
NEW POSITIONS
We work on the budget, and a lot of what we are doing, as
the Sergeant at Arms said, is carrying out the emergency
supplemental appropriations that Congress funded in 1999. There
were 260 positions and a great number of technological
improvements. How many of the 260 have been hired now? Did I
hear you say 215?
Chief Abrecht. Mr. Chairman, 215 is the number of sworn
positions within that 260. Of those, 167 officers of the 215
have been hired, and 10 of the civilians have been hired. We
are still discussing with the committees authorization for 18
civilian positions. That still needs to be agreed to. And the
rest of the sworn are scheduled to be hired between now and the
end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Taylor. You mentioned one of the deployments, two at
each door. Can you talk about any other deployments you would
like to make, especially the numbers, out of the 215 regular
officers, how they are to be deployed?
Chief Abrecht. Well, a number of positions on the civilian
side. They are not in large blocks, but let me see if I can
quickly find where we have those listed. There is a substantial
number that are in the physical security area to supplement.
Mr. Greeley's staff. A large amount of the security enhancement
fund went to additional physical security service. There are 17
positions in the physical security division. In the
Administrative Services Bureau, there were five additional
positions for firearms instructors, the Director of Information
Technology, and as you recall, and as I mentioned earlier, one
of the things that we decided to ask the committees to approve
is to assist us with the improvement of our administrative
infrastructure.
Frankly, one of the mistakes I perhaps made in my career,
and I guess when you are leaving, you can say things like this,
is that we focused the operation of the Department almost
entirely on the mission of the Department, and whenever it came
to we needed an extra post somewhere, I would say, well, where
can we take that out of the fat rather than out of the actual
frontline force. And we cut the administrative infrastructure
of the Department down too far. So we started having problems
in the financial management area, we have had problems in the
human resources area, and that is, frankly, because I was
always resistant to cutting the frontline. When we needed more
people, I would pull them out of infrastructure, and I probably
did that too much.
So one of the things we asked for was to use some of those
additional positions to beef up the administrative
infrastructure of the Department in the human resources area.
There are seven positions, and then there are five in the
financial management area. So those are the big blocks, other
than the sworn positions, where they would go.
As you mentioned, this first increment of sworn positions
goes primarily to doubling up the access points, and then some
additional patrol on the square in particular to have more
officers visible on the outside of the building, to make some
attempt to intercept any group or individual that might be
coming towards them. Because we don't have a physical barrier
like a fence like at the White House, we rely on the eyes and
ears of those officers to see something unusual coming at us
and to try to intercept that person or group outside of the
building, rather than at the entrance point, which is obviously
a more dangerous situation.
SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
Mr. Taylor. In addition to personnel, we also provided
about $64.5 million for communications, access control, and so
forth. Can you talk to us about the status of these projects?
Chief Abrecht. In general, all of the tasks are on schedule
and within budget. We are near completion of the purchasing and
deployment of the new security screening equipment. The soft
body armor and weapons replacement are well under way. The
digital CCTV recording system has been selected through a
competitive process, and the procurement has begun. The design
of the integrated security system is progressing on schedule;
new installations are on going. The first progress report for
the security enhancement plan was completed and transmitted to
the committee on November 5. The next report will be issued in
April.
So we are on schedule and within budget on all of the other
items.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follow:]
Question. Many of these items should replace the need for
additional officers by improving communications and observation
over the buildings and grounds. Explain for the members of the
committee how you plan to reduce personnel needs as a result of
these other security measures.
Response. As outlined in the Security Enhancement
Implementation Plan (SEIP), the Capitol Police are in the
process of designing and installing new security systems
throughout the Capitol complex. These systems correct security
deficiencies noted in the 1995 and 1998 United States Capitol
Security Reviews. These security reviews recommended an
increase in both technology and manpower.
The recommendations provide a means to use technology to
improve detection capabilities and provide an earlier warning
of an impending threat. The deployment of this new security
equipment enhances the security of the Capitol complex while
correcting all deficiencies noted. It has always been the
intent to supplement uniformed officers, not replace them.
BODY ARMOR AND WEAPONS
Mr. Taylor. You mentioned soft body armor and weapons.
Could you be more specific about what the status of that is?
Chief Abrecht. Yes. The new weapon has been issued to 406
of the officers, and we expect that all sworn members will have
qualified and been issued the new weapon by December of this
year. The soft body armor, 246 members have been issued and are
actually wearing the new soft body armor, and we expect by the
end of this month all of the officers will have received it.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Taylor. Certainly.
Mr. Pastor. This new body armor, is it supposed to be
designed to fit the person, as I understand it?
Chief Abrecht. That is right.
Mr. Pastor. And at least I have heard a little bit of a
rumor where some officers received it, and, in fact, the body
armor was either too big, too small or didn't fit for whatever
reason, and now you find that the armor that we bought may not
be----
Chief Abrecht. Not at all. Yes, that has happened, but we
are in no way paying for any body armor that does not fit.
Mr. Pastor. That is my question.
Mr. Livingood. It is a tailoring mistake.
Mr. Pastor. So what are we doing about it?
Mr. Livingood. We rectified it. We retailored.
Chief Abrecht. We had the company fly in the fitter. We had
a few body armors that didn't fit on the first few days. We
immediately called the vendor and said, you screwed this up,
send your person in here and see that these fittings are done
correctly. Anything that didn't fit, we did not accept. Only
the vests that fit 100 percent and actually according to the
NIJ specifications will be accepted, which is why we are
perhaps not as far along in issuing them as we would like,
because we would not accept nor would we issue anything that
does not fit exactly according to the NIJ specifications. That
was in the contract. All officers had to be individually
measured, and then the body armor had to be fitted, and it was
according to the specifications, and as it came in, the
officers tried it on, and if it didn't fit, we said we will
have the guy come in and remeasure you and fit you exactly. We
will not pay or issue any armor that does not fit the exact
specification, which has to be individually fitted to the
officer.
Mr. Pastor. So where are we, again, in that status of
number of officers that have the armor?
Chief Abrecht. Mr. Pastor, 246 have it. We have measured a
total of 1,215 people.
Chris, can you tell me exactly where we are in terms of
fitting?
Mr. McGaffin. Deputy Chief Christopher McGaffin.
As the Chief points out, there are really two reasons that
you have heard of for the body armor not fitting. First, the
company has an experience of 10 to 15 percent of their product,
and this is typical in the standard pretty much throughout the
industry, body armor that needs to be remanufactured, either
because the officer's size has changed or because of other
manufacturing problems.
Mr. Pastor. I hope it didn't change too much.
Mr. McGaffin. We went through Christmas and Thanksgiving.
Mr. Pastor. A relatively short period of time.
Mr. McGaffin. The second reason had to do, frankly, with
the property management division personnel who are actually
fitting the officers. These are our employees. This is the
first time they have ever fitted anybody for a custom fit. The
armor has been sized, measured, and when the officers come in
to receive it, our personnel are making sure that it properly
contours to the body.
So as the Chief pointed out, we insisted that the Federal
rep for this contract fly back in to D.C. to retrain our
personnel. We went from about a 50-50 ratio of officers
accepting the body armor and officers rejecting the body armor
to right now a 75 to 25 percent ratio to the good where
everybody seems to be properly fitted and leaving very
satisfied.
Mr. Pastor. Just so I have my figures right, you have 1,500
force, men and women, who would wear this?
Mr. McGaffin. Yes. That includes your civilian employees as
well.
Mr. Pastor. How many are there, men and women?
Mr. McGaffin. 1,215.
Mr. Pastor. And we are at 240 something?
Mr. McGaffin. Yes. As the Chief pointed out, some of this
had to do with the winter storms this past week, and the State
of the Union and other events which prevented our officers from
coming down to receive their body armor. But I believe as of
this week, all of the body armor has been delivered, and we are
scheduling a 12-hour, 14-hour day to allow officers from all
three shifts to come in and receive their equipment.
Mr. Pastor. So maybe at the end of this month, everybody
should have it.
Mr. McGaffin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pastor. The second question I have, it deals with we
issued new firearms.
Mr. McGaffin. Yes, sir.
Firearm Training
Mr. Pastor. And it is my understanding that we have run
into problems in terms of people being able to qualify to be
issued an outfit because they don't have the time or facilities
to go train themselves with this armor, shooting this
particular gun.
Mr. McGaffin. We have implemented a 40-hour force training
program that includes a block of instruction on transitioning
to this new 40-caliber handgun, and as the Chief pointed out,
406 men and women on this police department have successfully
transitioned to this weapon. To tell you the truth----
Mr. Pastor. That is about a third.
Mr. McGaffin. Yes, sir. What I am being very careful to
track is the DMQ, the rate of failure of men and women going
through the program, and also tracking the difference between
their scores with the existing 9-millimeter weapon versus this
new 40-caliber weapon. We have been very satisfied with the
results that have come out of this program, as have the
officers, the men and women who have successfully completed it.
We have had--out of all of the men and women go through, we
have had less than 30 fail the program. So we are quite
pleased, and I think most of the officers have come through are
pleased as well.
Mr. Pastor. Do you think all 1,215 will have the new
firearm?
Mr. McGaffin. We are projecting by the end of this year,
this program will be completed and that every officer will have
gone through the transition with a weapon. Some of the
obstacles that we are overcoming right now, sir, include our
firearms ranges, which had to close for a month because of the
backstop being a safety issue, which is one of the issues that
the Chief alluded to with the need that came out of the master
plan regarding our training division and our training facility.
But we could have done a very quick job on transitioning to the
firearm, but we felt that was unnecessary because the 9-
millimeter weapon we have right now is serviceable and very
functional. The 40-caliber is an enhancement, but the 40 Glock
starts at the lowest level use of force, escalates all the way
through the highest level, which is, of course, the firearm.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. This is a Glock that you are using?
Mr. McGaffin. The Glock 22, yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Could you tell me, what do you find the
greatest problem in transferring from the 9-millimeter to the
Glock?
Mr. McGaffin. The most typical issue that we have to
overcome is the felt recoil. It is a higher-caliber weapon, so
it is going to have more punch to it when you discharge a
round. And it requires officers to concentrate and focus very
carefully on their wrist and grip on the firearm.
One of the issues that we have noticed is that it takes
several hours and several hundred rounds for the officers to
reach this level of focus. Once they do, they are sailing
rather successfully through the rest of the program.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I want to thank the whole Board, but commend you
particularly Chief, for a great career and great contribution.
I want to encourage you to do one thing, too. You said you had
the liberty to say things now that you are retiring that you
might not normally say. I would encourage you to write those
things down on your way out the door or maybe even a week
later. Things that you really believe we need to hear. Some of
the most honest things in this city come from people who are
not running for reelection, or are retiring. Senator Moynihan
is being real candid these days, and Senator Baker is giving me
a lot of advice in Tennessee that people who are in office or
are in charge of an organization aren't at liberty to say.
So I would encourage you to let us have information in the
off-season. Information that you may think is beneficial to us
doing a better job understanding morale issues, and other
issues that you might not be at liberty, to discuss right now.
NAME TAGS
I have another recommendation that may seem like a little
thing, but I think it is a big thing, and that is your name
tag, Chief, and all of your officers' name tags. I like to
speak to people, and after we lost two officers a year and a
half ago, I was even more cognizant of the family approach
around here. And if a man or a woman is going to lay their life
down on my behalf, I would like to know their first name, and I
would like to call them by their first name.
I know a dozen Capitol Hill police officers by their first
name because they are basically where I normally go, and I stop
to talk to them, and I know them by name. I think it goes a
long way for Members to say, good morning, Charles, or
whatever. Right now your name tag is kind of like a badge, but
I can hardly read it from over here. There are floor personnel
up here who now have their first name and their last name, and
it is gold, it is attractive, but it is black where the letters
are. Sometimes they may not know if I really know their first
name or if I am just quick to see it.
But I tell you, just calling them by their first name
creates this team approach around here that we are all in this
together. I think it would really do a lot for Members to be
able to recognize officers and Capitol Hill police personnel by
their first name. So I would strongly encourage you to do that.
I don't want to take away any of the glamour of your uniform. I
just want to be able to recognize first names and really to get
more personal around here. And the two officers we lost, kind
of in recognition of their family, when it was all said and
done, it was the little details that their families really
cared about, and that personal approach, and we sometimes lose
it around here. So if you can think that through and maybe
implement that, I would sure be encouraged.
CAPITOL BUILDING ACCESS
Another question I have is how many points of ingress and
egress are there to this building right now, that are open to
the general public?
Chief Abrecht. Eleven, in this building.
Mr. Wamp. To the public? The public has to be more than
that. This building was built a long time ago for everybody to
just walk in and out of.
The question I have, rather than getting into numbers, is
between now and the time the Visitors' Center is open, and that
access, ingress and egress, is very restricted at that time to
the public, will there be further restrictions, and if so,
where and why, or how? Just what is the transition, or is there
a transition? Because that is still a concern to me. After we
lost the two officers, and I realized for the first time in a
very clear way that our officers are the line of defense; there
is no screening device other than the personnel that are there
to keep people with guns out of this building.
How many points of ingress and egress are there? And we are
obviously wanting to beef up the number of personnel at those
points of ingress and egress, but another good way is to have a
plan between now and the Visitors' Center opening of not
restricting the access to the Capitol, but just a planned way
of kind of weaning the general public off of just walking in
and out of this building, and even Members.
I know this would be very unpopular to say that Members
should be more careful or more restricted, but to me it seems
like the whole ability for Members just to kind of grab a bunch
of people and walk in the door, at some point this is too much
an unsafe world for that liberty to just continue. I would hate
for us not to say anything about it and for then, you know, all
heck to break loose, and all of us say, you know, we could have
been more discreet, or we could have been trained better,
Members could have been more wise as to look for when people
are hanging around a group of people, and then 37 people come
in with a Member, and eight of them aren't even with that
group, and one of them was the bad guy.
Mr. Wamp. That is a big issue, but I think it is an
important issue, and I think it is important for members to go
ahead and speak up. I am a relatively young guy around here,
and I think we ought to go ahead and come to grips with today's
security problems and know there ought to be some restrictions,
even if it is just a code of conduct that we agree to, we
adhere to, to say that we are only going to bring 25 people in
at a time or whatever and they are going to be people that we
know.
I don't know. I just know that we need to transition from
here to the Visitors' Center with a more responsible approach.
Have you got any comments?
Chief Abrecht. There are basically two parts to your
question. The part about restricting doors, on certain doors
not to let the public into those doors, the irony of the
situation on July 24th, was that the door that Mr. Weston
entered was in fact not a public entrance. The problem is, of
course, he just came in the door; whether it was a public
entrance or not, he just charged the door.
One of the things we have done about that is to prescreen
people. We put an officer outside the Document door, for
example, and you can't get through the door without at least
showing identification or stating you have some right to go in
through that door. That is one issue.
Mr. Livingood, I think, would probably like to speak to the
issue of Members being in groups. He has been very concerned
about that for a long time, expressed his concern to the
committees and to the Members about that. So maybe I will speak
to it if you would like.
Mr. Livingood. That is something that the Chief of the
Department and the Board have worked on and we have right now,
pending some recommendations for some possible changes.
Mr. Wamp. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Livingood. At least, if not changes, awareness on the
Members' part.
PERIMETER SECURITY
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, one minute. Last year we talked
about a perimeter plan. We spent some time discussing that and
how we were going to beef up. Now, does this complement what we
are doing with the security, and is this all under one?
Chief Abrecht. Absolutely.
Mr. Pastor. Where are we at on that one? You are talking
about additional personnel, security. Where are we on that?
Mr. Hantman. The perimeter security plan is under final
design right now. We expect to come back to this committee in
May of this year for approval to go and bid that perimeter
security program in light of the full design process, the same
posts that are now being manned by the Capitol Police on the
main south entrance to the House and north entrance for the
Senate will stay intact. The driveways going up to the west
side will have card activated exits, so cars can leave through
the west side but not come back in. The barriers will be
located at the end of the drives.
So that is proceeding apace, and we are going to be coming
back in May for approval to spend the funds that have already
been appropriated.
Mr. Pastor. I guess the question should have been asked
this way:
Was that taken into consideration as you looked for
additional full-time employees?
Chief Abrecht. Yes. The perimeter security plan is
primarily a vehicle barrier plan. It really does not do
anything to keep pedestrians off the square. It will remain
open 24 hours a day to any pedestrian. The perimeter security
plan seeks to keep the Oklahoma City-type truck from getting
anywhere near the Capitol Building.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, at one time we talked about not
allowing parking on the driveways. Were we successful in that?
What is the status of that?
Mr. Taylor. No. There wasn't too much enthusiasm for that.
Mr. Pastor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VISITORS CENTER
Mr. Taylor. Are you having adequate input into the security
planning for the Visitors' Center and the other things that
were planned in time?
Chief Abrecht. Absolutely. The Capitol Police attend weekly
meetings with the Architect of the Capitol and the design
consultants for the Visitors' Center, and we have been fully
integrated into the design and are active participants in the
AOC's design team.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer, do you have comments or questions?
Mr. Hoyer. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. First let me make a comment.
I know some comments have been made, Chief. I know this
will be your last testimony before this committee, at least as
the chief, and you may be back here as former chief, and Mr.
Wamp may want to ask you some questions, but the fact is you
have done an outstanding job. The Roll Call editorial was very
appropriate in the sense that you probably confronted the most
difficult period in Capitol Police history when we lost two
outstanding officers in Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson.
You handled yourself with dignity, and you brought calm to a
situation that could have been more volatile than it was and
less secure.
Since that time, you have shown a great deal of leadership
in the ensuring safety of our officers, number one, and in the
security of our Capitol complex. I want to thank you for your
service to your country and to the Capitol Police.
REPLACEMENT PROCESS FOR CHIEF OF POLICE
Chief Abrecht. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hoyer. Now, let me ask my good friend, Mr. Livingood,
have you determined how we are going to go about the very
difficult job of replacing the chief?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir. After much consideration, we, the
Capitol Police Board, have decided to conduct an internal--
meaning inside the Capitol Police--internal and external
focused executive search for a candidate qualified to replace
Chief Abrecht as the new chief of the U.S. Capitol Police.
Mr. Hoyer. What is the time frame?
Mr. Livingood. Well, we have started, and hopefully we will
have--we have asked for resumes, calls, postmarked no later
than February 16. So around the 22nd of February, we will start
going through all our resumes for this position. We want to do
as quick a search as possible, yet still give everybody a
chance with this search, because we feel that this next
generation is going to be extremely important for the Capitol
Police and for the Congress that we find a manager who can
continue to lead us into this new century.
Mr. Hoyer. I agree with that. I have been on this Hill a
long time. I started out here at the age of, I guess, 21,
working for a congressman. Then he became a United States
Senator, Jack Sullivan--some of you won't remember that name,
but his dad was chief of the Capitol Police, which was then
largely a group of very dangerous people, some of whom I went
to law school with, and who had no idea.
Mr. Chairman, talking about giving people guns, I went to
school with some Capitol policemen, and one might think to
himself, how did they ever get guns? Of course, nobody had any
thought that anybody was at risk, even though we had had
incidents, even involving Members on the House floor.
But what a change in the professionalism of our force has
occurred over those now four-plus decades. The Chiefs successor
will have the responsibility of making sure that we have a
force, as I think we have now, that is up to a challenge in a
very, very dangerous world.
We are starting terrorism units at the State Department.
Terrorism units in the Marines as you know have been charged
with carrying out biological responses. It is incredible
challenges that our men and women of the Capitol Police are
going to have to face. So they need to be led well, trained
well and compensated well for their service.
Well, I am pleased to hear that because I think that is the
way to go.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Chief, let me ask you about your information technology.
Perhaps you can respond to that.
Chief Abrecht. We were appropriated $400,000 to make the
first incremental change. We have a systems architecture, have
a contract to have the systems architecture design for the new
system, and that is approaching completion, and we will be
prepared to spend this year's increment; and we are basically
requesting in this coming budget the remainder of the funds
that will be necessary to really complete that work.
Mr. Hoyer. Good. How much money is there? Is there money in
the budget for that?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, there is in this current year's budget,
and I believe the amount for next year is 800,000. That is a
total of a million two.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I have already taken, I know, my
allotted time, and I appreciate your consideration. I have a
couple of other questions, if you have no others.
Mr. Taylor. We will continue to go. I wanted to.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
What about the security planning and maintenance work for
the Library of Congress? That is a new responsibility of
course. What is the status of that work, and I will ask the
chief or anyone who wants to comment on it.
Chief Abrecht. Well, consistent with the Public Law 105-
277, which is the security enhancements plan, the Capitol
Police force exercises its responsibility for design,
installation and maintenance through an oversight approval and
coordination process regarding all plans for changes in the
physical security systems and the equipment for the Library.
The Capitol Police serves in an advisory capacity for the
Library and as outlined in a memorandum of understanding
between the Department, the Library and the Architect of the
Capitol. As such, the Library coordinates with the USCP's
physical security division to maintain continuity and
consistency of security system designs, procurement,
installation and operation.
The installation and maintenance of security equipment for
the Library is still the responsibility of the Architect, and
we have a copy--will be glad to make a copy of the MOU
available to you. It is essentially by the memorandum of
understanding that this is being accomplished. We don't do the
work. The Architect does.
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Mr. Taylor. Right. Now, the Booz-Allen study, recently we
had that, and it came up in our last year's appropriation. Can
you summarize the findings that have been implemented for that
study? You were into it last year but we weren't very far.
Chief Abrecht. Essentially, there are three major
recommendations. One was that we should reorganize, a single
individual in charge of the administrative operations and place
of the Department. The Board did that, and Deputy Chief
McGaffin, whom you heard from earlier, is now in charge of all
of the Department's administrative operations. So that
recommendation was done.
The other major recommendation is that we should develop a
strategic plan for the infrastructure support. That plan has
been completed and has been submitted to the committees, and we
are now actively involved in implementing it over the next 5
years. There is a timetable for each of the large number of
recommendations. We review our status on a monthly basis. We
make sure that we are moving forward on every one of the
strategic plan recommendations for improvement in the
administrative operations of the Department and also in the
security operations of the Department. So it is all very
carefully charted and is being aggressively followed up to make
sure that every one of the recommendations is met by the
deadline, and if not, why not, and what we can do to get it
back on track.
And the final major recommendation is that we just do more
in the area of documenting our policies and procedures. That
became one of the targets in the strategic plan, and each one
of those is laid out, and we are aggressively doing that, and
we are doing it in conjunction with our search for
accreditation. As you know, we also chose to hold ourselves up
to the standard and have sought accreditation from the
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies; and
one of the things they do is, they have endless pages of
standards and say you will have a policy on this issue. So we
are using their format and their policy requirements as part of
our project to review all of our policies and procedures. I
think we are well on our way to implementing it.
There is one aspect of it that is still hanging out there,
and that is that one of the recommendations, as I mentioned
earlier, that we still need to get the final approval to hire
the administrative support personnel that we need, and we have
been back and forth in discussion with this committee and
others on justification. I think we are very close to getting
it through, because having those positions will be very
critical, particularly in the financial management and the
human resources areas, to really begin to roll this ball
forward in an aggressive way.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. What about the other Booz-Allen recommendations?
How will they be handled?
Response. All of the recommendations have been addressed in
the Department's Strategic Plan with time lines which are
reviewed on a monthly basis. I would reiterate that the
positions necessary for the implementation of improvements to
the administrative infrastructure are still pending approval
from two committees and are urgently needed. Further, we have
requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget an additional $600,000
for the IT modernization effort. We have completed our plan and
will be forwarding it shortly to the committee for approval to
begin utilizing the $400,000 in the current year budget for
modernization. Lastly, we are working diligently with the
General Accounting Office to migrate our accounting system at
the outset of fiscal year 2001.
SALARIES BUDGET
Mr. Taylor. The salaries budget is up by 22 million. Some
of this is for COLAs and other routine salary items, but there
is $13 million for annual cost of the 260 additional personnel
funded in the 1999 security enhancement, over 100 of these
personnel were on the rolls last year and others will be added
during fiscal year 2000. Can you explain why their salaries
show as an add-on to the 2001 budget?
Chief Abrecht. Sure. Those positions were funded entirely
from that supplemental for the first 2 years. That was the way
it was designed, that the salaries for the officers and all
that equipment, everything was absorbed for the first 2 years
out of the supplemental.
What we have been doing is transferring, with your
permission, money from the supplemental, if you will, into our
salary bucket in order to be able to pay these people through
our National Finance Center salary system, so they have never
been annualized. The first group was not annualized in the 2000
budget. So they were set to be funded that way through
September 30th of this year, and now they are going to have to
be funded in 2001 out of our regular appropriation.
Mr. Taylor. Now you are requesting funds for 100 more
officers. That is another 2.4 million for partial year
salaries; is that correct?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Taylor. You have cited earlier studies to support your
justification for additional sworn personnel. The Congress took
these studies into careful consideration in deciding on the
security enhancement supplemental. This matter has already been
decided.
Are you rejecting the congressional decision that has
already been reached?
Chief Abrecht. No. I don't believe that is the case, Mr.
Chairman. It is certainly my recommendation, and I will admit
that this was in staff conversation, that the view was that the
study recommended much larger numbers than the 260; and we were
told, look, you couldn't hire more than 100 officers a year
even if you wanted to, and we agreed that that was probably the
case, that a realistic amount of hiring was 100 officers a
year. And it was certainly my understanding that this 260 was
something that was capable of being revisited at a later time,
given the fact that the studies had both shown numbers over
700.
So, no it is not my view that we are rejecting the
decision. For that 2-year period, the decision was 260, and not
for all times was certainly my understanding of it.
Mr. Taylor. There may be some discussion as we get into the
questions.
GENERAL EXPENSE BUDGET
Now, the general expense budget is up from 6.6 million to
10 million, an increase of 3.4 million. That is up 50 percent,
mostly in other services, supplies and materials. As we
understand it, the Senate Sergeant at Arms plans to reduce his
budget by a comparable amount for the increase requested for
reimbursement of Senate computer services.
Why don't we just transfer those funds and bills to show
the quid pro quo? Would that meet with your approval, Mr.
Ziglar?
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, last year at this hearing, I
raised the issue at the behest of the Senate Appropriations
Committee with regard to the funding out of my budget, which
has occurred over a number of years, of services which are
beyond simply computer services--it also involves graphics and
things like that--that we have provided to the Police
Department, unreimbursed out of my budget. And the Senate
Appropriations Committee has continued to discuss this matter
with us, and it is my view--two things really.
Number one, best business practices would suggest that
people who have the responsibility should have the budget
authority and get the best price that they can.
Secondly, I am under a lot of pressure in the Senate to
reduce my budget generally, and I will be reducing my operating
budget this year, I have reduced FTEs over the last year and
continue to do that. It is very difficult for me when I get
cuts to continue to have to take money out of my budget that is
not there specifically tagged to providing Senate services, and
I simply can't do that.
Going back to the business practices issue, if the police
need computer service and graphic services and things like
that, it ought to be in their budget and they ought to pay for
those things; and frankly, if they can go and get it cheaper,
other than from the Sergeant at Arms in the Senate, they ought
to do that. We certainly would be glad to provide it at cost,
but I would urge you to take that amount of money that we have
been supplying out of the Senate Sergeant at Arms budget and
put it in the police budget. I have not put in my budget this
year that amount of money.
Mr. Taylor. Good. I just want to say we need a better
understanding as far as capital assets, if you will write a
detailed list and justification for the record.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. We need a better understanding of the supplies
and capital assets increases. Provide detailed lists and
justifications for the record.
Response. The information follows.
Mr. Taylor. I will yield to Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Ziglar. Sure. We have gone through, item by item, that
we have been providing, and we have those numbers.
Mr. Pastor. This issue was before us last year?
Mr. Ziglar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pastor. As I recall, this committee appropriated what,
$600,000, to this effort, whatever?
Mr. Ziglar. That was for technology assets. That was not to
reimburse us for what we were doing, that was for additional
technological or technology assets.
Mr. Pastor. It was part of the Senate reimbursement.
Mr. Ziglar. Well, I didn't see it.
Mr. Pastor. Well, let me go back. I thought we made a
decision, at least by funding to that point, that we would have
budgeted to fund this effort in the Police Board.
Mr. Hoyer. What was the full figure?
Mr. Pastor. It was almost what, $2 million?
Mr. Hoyer. You will recall that initially, when we marked
up the bill, I had proposed its inclusion in the police budget
and then we deferred; and ultimately, we did put some money in.
Mr. Pastor. So that $600,000 was not part to reimburse the
Senate?
Chief Abrecht. $235,000 of it is available, remains
available to reimburse the Senate in its support of the
telecommunications area; and $400,000 was for the upgrade of
the computer system or the study of the upgrade requirements
for our computer system.
Mr. Pastor. Where are we at?
Mr. Hantman. $235,000.
Mr. Ziglar. That leaves another million. We have been
supplying about a million two in services approximately.
Mr. Pastor. Basically what you are saying is, fund it at
whatever amount and that gets you out of the picture and puts
it to the police force?
Mr. Ziglar. Yes.
Mr. Pastor. Is that all technology or--maybe I don't
understand.
Chief Abrecht. It includes all of our radio systems.
Mr. Pastor. Computers?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, our entire computing information
system, our links to the national intelligence services, our
links to the Metropolitan Police Department for computer checks
on criminal records, all of that.
Mr. Pastor. So that is in place?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, it is in place, but it is all funded
through the Senate presently.
Mr. Ziglar. I fund all of that.
Mr. Pastor. When you say funding, is it M&O, maintenance
and operation, or is it the actual hardware you are funding?
Chief Abrecht. Both.
Mr. Ziglar. It is personnel. For example, they had the
Seattle WTO event. We paid for sending equipment and that sort
of thing out there to provide protection for Members who were
out there.
Mr. Taylor. Gentlemen, we only have about 45 seconds. We
will adjourn, go up and vote and come right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Taylor. The committee will come back to session.
Mr. Hoyer, do you have some questions?
Mr. Hoyer. Yes.
I was going to ask about the completion of the complement
of personnel that you need for the security enhancement plan.
Are we close to having that done?
Chief Abrecht. The hiring?
Mr. Hoyer. Yes. That request is pending; is that it? How
many are we talking about?
Chief Abrecht. We are asking in this budget for an
additional 100 officers. We are authorized 260 additional
positions.
Mr. Hoyer. We have authorized and funded in the security
plan?
Chief Abrecht. That is correct.
Mr. Hoyer. So they are already funded. So you don't need to
ask for them, but you need approval of them.
Do we know where that is or how soon we can expect to get
that done?
Chief Abrecht. You are talking about the civilian
positions?
Mr. Hoyer. Yes. Isn't that what you were talking about with
the chairman?
Chief Abrecht. We have had several meetings with staff of
the two committees, and they had asked some additional
questions and we are gathering that information.
Mr. Hoyer. Now, when you say these two committees, the
House Administration and Senate Rules?
Chief Abrecht. No, House Administration and this committee.
The Senate has expressed no interest. They are done; that is
it.
Mr. Hoyer. But we are hopeful that this will be approved
soon?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, yes, we are. We have answered, I think,
the questions that were asked at the last meeting, and we hope
that they will be satisfactory.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. Last question.
Mr. Livingood. Within the next week we are going to have
paper to the committees requesting hiring these positions.
Mr. Hoyer. So we are waiting to see?
Mr. Livingood. We are waiting for the Police to finish. We
have been through it a couple of times. We just got the final
draft today.
FAMILIES OF DECEASED OFFICERS
Mr. Hoyer. Chief, I mentioned them earlier. Could you give
us an update on how the families of Chestnut and Gibson are
doing?
Chief Abrecht. Christmas was a tough time for them, even
though it was not the first Christmas.
Mr. Hoyer. It doesn't get any easier.
Chief Abrecht. I am frustrated. I would hope that it would
get easier, but it doesn't seem to, and they are coping. They
are people of tremendous strength, and they are doing the best
they can. We are continuing to support them with the family
liaison officers.
Mr. Hoyer. Do we keep in good touch with them? I know we
had them down here a couple of times. I think that helps them.
I think they need to continue to know that they are part of our
family, and we care about them and we haven't forgotten them.
Chief Abrecht. Yes, I have seen them in the building on a
number of occasions.
Mr. Hoyer. I mentioned the two officers, but there is a
third officer as well. I think I saw officer Eney's widow down
at the memorial.
Chief Abrecht. Eney, yes.
Mr. Hoyer. If there is anything any of us can do, I know
the Chairman feels that way, anything we can do to make them
feel----
Chief Abrecht. We have really been blessed to have two very
good family liaison officers who have spent a tremendous amount
of their personal time, way beyond what they do on official
time, maintaining contact. Officer Lopez in the case of Mrs.
Chestnut, and Sergeant DeWolfe in the case of Mrs. Gibson, who
spent a tremendous amount of their personal time helping them
deal with the children and so forth. The Department has been
very fortunate and the family has been very fortunate to have
us been able to find such good officers to do this.
Mr. Taylor. Chief, in 1993 and 1994 you had a chart like
that, and I believe we are wrapping up very quickly. Would you
mind making some comments about this?
Mr. Pastor, do you have some questions?
Mr. Pastor. Not on that.
Mr. Taylor. Well, go ahead and do that.
Mr. Pastor. Let me go back to that 1.7 line item so I can
understand it.
Mr. Ziglar. 1.2.
Mr. Pastor. 1.2. Last year you said basically this line
item cost 1.7, and at least in my mind, it was computers and
personnel.
Chief Abrecht. Telecommunications, radios.
Mr. Pastor. So there was some hard stuff, radios,
computers, software and people to operate.
Mr. Ziglar. You are talking about now this year or talking
about last year's budget?
Mr. Pastor. I am talking about the line item.
Mr. Ziglar. For last year. That was over and above anything
that we do. I am assuming that--I think I know what I'm talking
about here.
Mr. Pastor. I don't.
Mr. Ziglar. Let me back up. We in the Senate Sergeant at
Arms office provide services, equipment, expenses, for example,
to transport people and equipment to places where we are
providing police services, for example, at conferences,
retreats and such things, and we provide technical services. We
have provided transportation and equipment and things like that
at our expense out of our budget, as well as providing, on an
ongoing basis, the computer and radio services and that sort of
thing to the Police. And it has a cost--all those things have a
cost, last year had a cost of $1.2 million that came out of my
budget, unreimbursed; and we have been doing that over a period
of years. Now, the numbers have changed over the years, but we
have been doing that.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has instructed me to
not do that anymore, but to urge the police force and this
committee to put that money into the police budget. Now, if the
Police want for us to provide that service, that is fine. We
will do it at whatever it costs us. If they want to go outside
and find a service someplace else and pay less for it, that is
great, too. But the point is that we would like for the police
budget to reflect the actual cost of running the Police
Department, not have the Senate Sergeant at Arms paying part of
that cost, unreimbursed, and that creates a problem for me and
my own budget.
Mr. Pastor. I understand. So the computer services, they
are paying for it now? They own the computers, they are running
the computers for you?
Chief Abrecht. Absolutely. They pay for it entirely.
Mr. Pastor. I understand, but you are using it. They are
paying for it, so it is their equipment?
Chief Abrecht. That is correct.
Mr. Ziglar. I buy it and we put it in.
Chief Abrecht. They service it. If it breaks, we call them
and they send someone over to repair it. We have a very small
staff of in-house personnel who do quick-fix-type maintenance.
Anything of any substance, we call the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Pastor. So you are basically telling us to put that
$1.7 in the police force budget so that we can provide escort,
transfer equipment and do our own computer services?
Chief Abrecht. That is correct. $1.2 is what we are asking
for this year.
Mr. Pastor. And rather than them--we don't have to
reimburse them, what would be the actual cost? In the computer
services what are we actually buying? We paid them because they
bought that for us; is that what you are asking us to----
Mr. Ziglar. Well----
Mr. Pastor. A laptop, are you asking us to--we have them in
your possession, but you have will have the ownership because
you paid for them?
Mr. Ziglar. That is correct.
Mr. Pastor. So you want us to basically reimburse you?
Mr. Ziglar. The truth is, just going forward, I would like
for the Police Department to pay for whatever services or
equipment that it uses. I am not asking you to go back and
reimburse us for the last 3 years.
Mr. Pastor. No, no. All I am saying is, if in fact we are
going to buy those computers from you, then we don't have to
reimburse you, right, so that they are actually ours, unless
you give them to us and then they are ours, and that way there
is no more reimbursement to you and they are basically ours.
Let me tell you my concept. Here is how I look at it. He,
the chief, has a computer that basically you bought?
Mr. Ziglar. Correct.
Mr. Pastor. And he is--in common management terminology, he
is leasing it from you, but you haven't gotten paid for that
lease?
Mr. Ziglar. Free lease.
Mr. Pastor. Okay. Now, if you are asking us to buy it
because we want him to control it and operate it and all that,
then we are going to owe you some money. We have got to buy out
the lease, right?
Chief Abrecht. I think he intended to give it to us.
Mr. Ziglar. What I am talking about, the computers are
going to wear out, and they will have to be replaced. That will
cost more money. At that point, I think this budget ought to be
used to buy that equipment, or pay for the servicing of it and
things like that. I am not asking you to go backwards and do
it.
Mr. Pastor. You are saying, you have this cost, so go ahead
and put to it your budget, and I am out of it?
Mr. Ziglar. Those things are paid for.
Mr. Pastor. Yeah. But then your cost wouldn't be $1.7,
would it?
Chief Abrecht. It is $1.2, I believe.
Mr. Pastor. $1.2.
Chief Abrecht. The annual cost is replacement. It is like a
replacement cost on these things. There are costs to maintain
contracts on the software, and those costs have been identified
by the Senate Sergeant at Arms as $1.2 million.
Mr. Livingood. He also has a telecommunications staff who
provide, install and work on user radios.
Mr. Pastor. What about the escort service?
Mr. Ziglar. We don't do escort services.
Mr. Pastor. You send somebody to a WTO conference, have a
Senator or Representative there and security.
Chief Abrecht. That would be out of our budget then.
Mr. Livingood. I think what he means is someone taking the
radio equipment, if we have like a convention or a site where
we need radio communications for the Police. His people have
driven the radio equipment and installed it and set it up.
Mr. Pastor. Okay.
Mr. Ziglar. I send personnel.
Mr. Pastor. Okay. I wanted to have a better idea of what
the situation was.
And out of that, $400,000 is being used by the Police Board
and $200,000 is reimbursement for them?
Chief Abrecht. That was out of last year's; 400,000 is
being used for the modernization of our computer system, and
235 is available for reimbursement.
Mr. Pastor. I guess we are in installment packages.
So, okay, Mr. Chairman.
CRIME STATISTICS
Chief Abrecht. Let me just pass out paper versions of these
maps if you would like to see them.
The first map you see here is the crimes against persons
map. It shows that on the ground last year there were nine
crimes against persons, two assaults and seven robberies. That
is a reduction of 10 percent from the previous year. In the
extended jurisdiction there were 201 robberies, 171 assaults--I
can't add all this up. That is in the large area outside the
Capitol grounds.
Mr. Hoyer. That is the green?
Chief Abrecht. Yes, out to the green line. That is also a
reduction. The city did a good job. Their reduction was
slightly more, I think about 12 percent. They had a ways to go,
D.C., and all crime is down slightly in the ``crimes against
persons'' categories.
In the crimes against property, it is almost exactly flat
for the fiscal year on the grounds, and as was always the case,
the major items are thefts out of the offices, small
pilferages.
Mr. Taylor. Do you recall in 1993 what it was?
Chief Abrecht. I don't think I carry with me the
statistics, going back, that far.
I think we had a really substantial reduction; I would like
to take credit for it, but I would like to have the numbers in
front of me before I did.
Mr. Taylor. I think it was a combination of reform in the
city and your office. We are talking about several hundreds.
Chief Abrecht. That is my recollection, yes.
Mr. Taylor. Something like 600 in the narrow portion, it
may not be the same geographical area, and it was in the
thousands outside--between the Beltway or the highway down to
Union Station, that was about the area of usage. But when I saw
this and what you had before, you know, I was going to--in 1993
I was going to ask for some of that body armor for myself.
Chief Abrecht. I only have it going back 2 years. I have
the 1997 figures, as well, and there were 14 crimes against
persons on the grounds in 1997. Now we are down to nine.
In the extended jurisdiction, there were 571 crimes against
persons in 1997, and we are down to 389. That is almost a
third--that is a third reduction over the 2-year period. The
neighborhood is looking up.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Made a world of difference.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. For the record, please supply all reprogramming
requests made last year and the disposition of each by the
appropriation committees.
Response. The USCP did not have any reprogramming actions
in fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Taylor. Well, any other questions?
If not, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your
presentation. The committee will adjourn now until tomorrow
morning at 9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
WITNESSES
BARBARA CHILDS WALLACE, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GARY GREEN, GENERAL COUNSEL
JAMES STEPHENS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HOUSE
PAMELA TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE
BETH HUGHES-BROWN, BUDGET OFFICER
Mr. Taylor. The committee will come to order. We will take
up the budget submission of the Office of Compliance. The
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 established this
office. We have with us today the Executive Director, Ms.
Silberman and some of her staff members. She will introduce
them in a moment.
There is also a five-member part-time board of directors.
The Chairman of the Board is Mr. Glenn Nager, a Washington
attorney. Mr. Nager is going to be represented today by Barbara
Childs Wallace, who has just recently been appointed to the
Board. Welcome, all of you.
The fiscal year 2000 bill $2 million. The across-the-board
rescission took another $7,600. The budget before us is
$2,095,000. The staffing level of 17 FTEs is being reduced by
two positions.
Your prepared statement has been submitted, but we will ask
if you would like to sum up a statement, and then we will go to
questions.
Ms. Silberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to
be here today to present the Office of Compliance budget
request for the year 2001 and to be able to introduce to you
the statutory appointees and full-time leadership of the
office. James Stephens is the Deputy Executive Director for the
House; and Pam Talkin is the Deputy Executive Director for the
Senate; and Beth Hughes-Brown is our administrative officer;
and Gary Green, who is the general counsel of the office.
I want to thank Barbara Childs Wallace for coming up from
Jackson, Mississippi, to be with us today; she's a new member
of the Board. We look forward to the new appointees and to
working with them to continue the work of the office.
Let me stop for a minute and say on behalf of all of us, I
want to thank the Chairman and the staff of this committee,
particularly Ed Lombard without whose support the record of
accomplishment, the 5 years, of this office would not have been
possible.
This is the fifth year that as the chief operating officer,
it has been my privilege to testify before this committee. In
1997, our first full year of operation, our budget request
could only be based on a guesstimate, because no one really
could accurately predict how much it would cost to administer
and enforce the CAA. Each year that we have come to you, Mr.
Chairman, we have asked for a decrease, which, as I know, is
very unusual up here, but we have always been able to do that
until this year.
Unfortunately, this year we have had to ask for a small
increase of $95,000, and the reason that we have to ask for
that increase in spite of the fact that we have reduced two of
our full-time staff is because early on we determined that the
most cost-effective and efficient way to administer the office
was to use full--part-time, rather, experts and consultants on
an as-needed basis to perform some of the functions of the
office. And I will be glad to elaborate on that and to answer
any questions which you may have about the work of the office,
but I am hoping that we will be able to convince you that
indeed this is a small but necessary increase.
[Statement of executive director follows:]
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE AGENCY
Mr. Taylor. Could you hit some of the high points of the
last 5 years' accomplishments of your agency?
Ms. Silberman. I think that it is fair to say that when the
Act was passed 5 years ago, no one knew what to expect from
this office. And it seems to me that the foundational
accomplishment of the office was to establish the credibility
and independence of the office so that both employers and
employing offices would know that when they came to the Office
of Compliance, that they would get a fair and neutral hearing,
and the law would be enforced fairly and neutrally.
And I guess the first great accomplishment was the
promulgation of regulations. We had to review thousands of
pages of executive branch regulations and decide which ones
shouldn't be applied to the Congress, because that was the
charge the CAA gave to us. And those were promulgated on time,
and they gave a beginning to what--giving people the idea of
what they need--what to expect from the office. But we needed
to have an active education and information program, and we
have done that. And I think that is also one of the great
accomplishments of the office, the briefings that we have both
for employees and the employing offices, the quarterly
newsletter which goes out to every employee's residence, and
the manuals that have been prepared for each employing office.
This education and information effort was applied to make
people understand what it is that the CAA was providing.
And I think the third major accomplishment that we should
all look to was the model alternative dispute resolution
process which we put into effect. The establishment of a
resolution process for resolving disputes trusted by both
employees and employing offices to be fair, confidential, and
independent has been enormously important. The vast majority of
the cases have been resolved in this way in a cost-effective
and efficient manner.
And I think, finally, the other area in which the CAA is
making an enormous difference in terms of the accomplishments
of the office is in the area of the general counsel's
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. That has
been the area in which there has been an enormous amount of
work done, but an enormous amount remains to be done. The
general counsel is mandated to do biannual inspections, and to
respond to the requests for inspections that come from people
on the Hill.
And that has turned out to be a very time-consuming, but
important process because I think everybody agrees on the fact
that we have a safer and healthier Capitol workplace,
congressional workplace.
So I would say that those are the four major
accomplishments that we are proudest of. And again, I want to
thank this committee and staff for your help in helping us to
be able to do that.
Mr. Taylor. Who are the people on the Hill that you would
respond to with OSHA? You mentioned that you would respond to
people on the Hill. Who would those people be? Any employee,
the Architect's Office, a Member--ordinarily who would be
contacting you with a request?
Ms. Silberman. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to give that
question to the general counsel because it is his
responsibility to administer and enforce the OSHA provisions.
Mr. Green. The statute gives every covered employee the
right to request an inspection and indeed any covered employer
as well as employing office. Over the past several years, a
wide variety of employees, individual employees, and unions
representing employees on the Hill, have made these requests.
Mr. Taylor. A lot of what is on the Hill is open to the
public. Millions come through. Do you ever get requests in any
area from the general public?
Mr. Green. No, although I must say there have been,
especially in the early years of the statute, occasional
requests from the public for information and assistance with
questions involving the Americans With Disabilities Act. But
the general public has not raised questions with me about OSHA,
and they do not, as I say, have a statutory right to request an
inspection.
ARCHITECT'S RECORD OF COMPLIANCE
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Last year you issued several citations,
recommendations to the Architect of the Capitol regarding the
condition of the House and Senate office buildings, and the
power plant. Have those conditions been corrected?
Mr. Green. Yes, they have. The Architect's record for
complying with citations is very good. It responds quickly,
cooperatively and effectively.
Mr. Taylor. In other words, all have been corrected.
Mr. Green. Yes. Well, I will say this: All of the abatement
that was required by our citations has been satisfied.
Mr. Taylor. What remains outstanding, would you, say in
your inspection?
Mr. Green. Well, we issued a report last week which was a
detailed blueprint on exactly what was wrong with fire safety
standards on the Hill, and there is a lot of work there to be
done. Also, as a follow-up to the fire in the Madison Building
of the Library of Congress last year, we issued a series of
citations which required an independent--among other things, it
required them to hire an independent lab to test the switch
gear in the building. You may recall one of them was damaged by
fire. And our citations in part were based on the total lack of
maintenance of that switch gear. So we wanted an independent
lab to examine the question of whether the other switch gear
and circuit breakers were functioning. The law was satisfied in
that the Architect did hire the lab; the tests were done.
Unfortunately, the testing shows that the other switch gear
requires a great deal of work by way of replacement, and that
replacement work is not yet complete. So while the law was
complied with, there are still safety issues in that connection
and in others mentioned in our report.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[A question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]
Question. For the record, summarize these findings, actions to
date, and outstanding problems.
Response. In 1999, the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance
issued the following citation against the Architect of the Capitol:
(1) April 1999--U.S. Capitol Building--absence of fall protection
for employees required to work near the edge of the roof top.
(2) April 1999--Capitol Power Plant--failure to conduct adequate
testing for Legionella bacteria.
(3) July 1999--Madison Building LOC: failure to train electricians
regarding high voltage safety rules.
(4) July 1999--Madison Building LOC: failure to maintain alarm
system in operating condition.
(5) July 1999--Madison Building LOC: failure to conduct required
maintenance and testing of switchgear.
The Architect's Office effectively abated all of these violations
within the periods specified in the respective citations.
The outstanding problems consist largely of numerous violations of
fire safety standards in the U.S. Capitol and the House and Senate
Office Buildings, detailed in the General Counsel's January 2000
Reports issued pursuant to Section 215(c)(1) of the Congressional
Accountability Act. Citations based upon these observations are now
being drafted and will be issued in the near future.
In addition, other investigations are presently underway in
response to separate requests for inspection of alleged health and
safety violations involving tunnel workers and elevator repairmen.
COST OF REMEDIATION
Mr. Taylor. Do you have any estimate of the amount of cost
or time, and this may be far beyond your ability or your scope,
as to what, on the most pressing things that are still
outstanding, as far as what this committee should do in
funding?
Mr. Green. I think you are right that some of it is well
beyond my scope. I am not an architect or an engineer, and
there are certain--the Architect may reach a point in his
efforts to comply with our citations and our reports where he
may have to do studies using architects and engineers to
determine what the costs will be.
But I think it is safe to say that most of the violations
we have found and most of the criticisms we have in our latest
fire safety report will not require substantial additional
funding, if any. We harp again and again on the absence of
effective routine maintenance inspection and testing of fire
systems, and it seems to me that is largely a matter of
training and supervising existing staff to conduct those duties
on a periodic basis with diligence. It is not a new billing
cost item.
We have called also for additional fire barriers, and there
is some expenditure there, but most of the stairwells that need
to be supplied with fire-rated barriers already have doors on
them. It is simply a matter of replacing the inadequate doors
with those that serve a lifesaving function. There is some
money involved, and I can't give you an estimate of how much,
but it is not an extremely large number.
There are also some monumental stairwells which would be
relatively expensive to provide barriers for, but it may not be
necessary to do that. If on a building-by-building basis it can
be determined that enough stairwells are protected so that the
occupants can safely leave the building during an emergency,
there is no need to provide additional barriers on the
monumental staircases.
But that is a case-by-case determination, and if worse came
to worse, and a monumental staircase did have to be supplied
with fire barriers, there are examples right here in Washington
in which architects and engineers have devised virtually
invisible doors in some of the buildings here in Washington for
under $20,000 per doorway. And when I say invisible, some of my
inspectors were in one of these executive branch buildings in
recent months and stood within 5 feet of the door and couldn't
see it.
So, I think the short answer to your question is that exact
dollars are beyond my scope, but I don't think fire safety
necessitates great capital expenditure.
Mr. Taylor. Ed, do you think that is some of the same doors
that they have that you can't get open?
Mr. Pastor. You can get them open, but you have to be able
to read the messages.
Could I ask a follow-up?
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
Mr. Pastor. Let's use the door to this room as an example.
Under your recommendation those doors should open out, but they
open in.
Mr. Green. That is right.
Mr. Pastor. And they said, one of the problems is that the
hall is so narrow, that if they open out, the question is, who
are you going to hit in the head, or who are you going to hit
in the face, because people may be rushing wherever they are
rushing to, and you may cause a bottleneck. But it may not be
that simple to put in two doors that open out, because it may
require for esthetic reasons, for structural reasons, et
cetera, more than just changing the hinges.
However, it has only been since 1997 in which the House and
the Senate, has decided to follow all the rules that we placed
on everybody else and that has been one of the problems since
OSHA has been around for 30 years. Other laws have been around
longer where people and agencies had a longer time, to comply
and the AOC has only been able to start working or had the
responsibility to start working on it since 1997.
Another point raised is one of access. It is very difficult
just to go in a building and be able to do the sprinklers, the
fire alarms, the wiring, the infrastructure, because you just
can't shut down one building and take the 2 months, 3 months, a
year, whatever it takes to get it in compliance.
So the AOC gave those reasons in terms of saying that it
has been difficult for him to come to compliance. Esthetically
also he said some of the recommendations may not be workable,
some of these walls, et cetera. So how do you assess that
rationale?
Mr. Green. Congressman, I find a lot in what you say.
A lot of what I just heard is understandable and
sympathetic and realistic. It is true that 3 years of efforts
to comply is not perhaps an adequate time for the staff he has.
But my job is to point out what the standards are and where
they are being violated, and blow the whistle when they are. I
must say that the question of what those standards are may be
misunderstood. This is an historic building, and it is subject
in the code--the OSHA standards that we apply are based on a
more relaxed or flexible code, if you will, for historic
buildings so that no one is holding the Architect up to the
obligations of the private sector in commercial real estate.
These are much more relaxed, and there are standards that are
designed to accommodate the needs of balance of esthetic and
historic considerations against fire safety. So it is a much
more relaxed standard to start with.
Frankly, I don't have a solution to the question of whether
having those doors open outwards is going to cause more
accidents and do more harm than good. I don't know the answer
to that. But I do know that a room this size that holds this
many people, the fact that that door opens inward is a
violation of a legal standard, and I am obliged to point that
out, and that is all I am doing.
Mr. Pastor. Okay.
Mr. Taylor. There were some differences of opinion with the
Committee on House Administration about some of your duties.
Has that been resolved?
Ms. Silberman. I think that it is fair to say that one of
our accomplishments is that we get along with everybody these
days. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. You are better than a lot.
Mr. Pastor. If they get along with everybody, that is
great.
Mr. Taylor. We see a tremendous increase in pending
counseling cases, from 5 to 276; and mediation, from 9 to 18.
Can you speak about that?
Ms. Silberman. Yes. I think it is fair to say that the
increase is an aberration with little or no fiscal implication.
Nearly 290 of the cases that were pending at the end of the
fiscal year were filed by employees challenging one personnel
practice by one of the larger congressional--I am sorry,
legislative branch employers. So although there were 290
separate claims, they really only involved one dispute, and
that is an aberration that I suppose could happen again, but it
is aberrational. It isn't a workload issue for us.
INCREASE IN OTHER SERVICES
Mr. Taylor. Right. You have a $104,000 request for other
services; that is, an increase, I believe. The budget request
is up by 104,000 for other services.
Ms. Silberman. That is the increase that I noted in my
opening statement, along with the fact that each year we have
been able to ask for less money than the year before. But this
year for the first time we have asked for an increase of
$95,000 despite diminishing two FTEs. By eliminating two FTEs,
we realized a savings of some $120,000 in salary and benefits,
but the increase in the cost of services offsets that. And it
is wholly attributable to the services for the experts we
retain on an as-needed basis to fulfill our core
responsibilities under the CAA.
Most notably, there are two areas. One is in the
alternative dispute resolution area. We have asked for or
budgeted an increase of some $57,000 for the mediators, hearing
officers and court reporters who are necessary for us to
fulfill the core function of alternative dispute resolution. We
early on decided that the most cost-effective way to provide
these services was to get the experts in the field on an as-
needed basis to perform these functions. And we secured people
who have mediated throughout the Federal Government, and we
were able in our early years to get them on a reduced basis.
However, this last year they came to me and said, on a per-hour
basis we are not being paid the same by you as we are being
paid by other government agencies. And so what we did was in
this year's budget, we included some $57,000, which is a per-
hour increase in the cost of their services.
The other area of other services which takes up almost
$33,000 is in the area of health and safety, because in order
to respond to these requests for inspections, the general
counsel needs to employ experts who we certainly would not keep
on tap all the time, but when we need them, we need them. We
need somebody who knows about diseases, for instance, or we
need a fire safety expert. And the general counsel will come to
me and say, I need to hire this person for so many hours. And
those costs have gone up quite a bit.
So of the $95,000 increase in our budget, the vast majority
of them is--well, as a matter of fact, more than the $95,000
increase is for other services. I have just attributed to about
$90,000 of it. The rest is for--there is a small amount of
money that we need for temporary--the services of temps because
we don't have as many people on staff as we used to. That is
another $4,000 to $5,000 a year; also training for our staff,
$2,600; and then there is an increase of, I believe, about
$7,000 for our interagency agreement with the Library of
Congress to perform administrative services.
So that makes up the whole $104,000, but I think it is fair
to say that the vast majority of it is to provide a cost-
efficient way to provide the absolutely necessary services that
the Act mandates that we perform.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Pastor. Just for my information, I notice that the
number of proceedings initiated by covered employees, there
were 330 last year, and 311 came from the Architect. What seems
to be the problem?
Mr. Green. Well, I think Ms. Silberman indicated a few
moments ago that there was one proceeding in which each and
every employee involved is going through an exercise of their
statutory rights, and they have to in order to do that. So it
is really like one lawsuit with a lot of employees.
Mr. Pastor. Yesterday I asked the Architect about a
complaint filed on hazardous differential pay. There were nine
employees, African Americans, who were at the power plant,
dealing with coal and the coal dust. And they felt that because
they were African American, that they were not given the
hazardous wage differential. You had 30 days to investigate the
case. Then I asked for the result. They said it was resolved--
--
Ms. Silberman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor. That is the Chairman, by the way. Don't get me
excited.
Mr. Taylor. Go right ahead. We are good friends.
Ms. Silberman. As you well know, the confidentiality
requirements of this Act don't apply in OSHA proceedings, but
this is not an OSHA proceeding. This is someone who filed a
complaint with us. And therefore, I am--we really can't discuss
it.
Mr. Pastor. Well, can you tell me if it was resolved
favorably? Was it resolved unfavorably to the complainants?
Ms. Silberman. I will have to get back to you. This is one
of many cases that have been brought to us, and I don't know
where it is in the process.
Mr. Pastor. Okay.
Most of your complaints are coming out of title 7 of the
Civil Rights Act. Is it the location of where they are working
in terms of everybody else getting better opportunities? Is it
wage differential?
Mr. Green. Congressman, the complaints you are talking
about now are not prosecuted by the general counsel, they are
brought by individual employees before hearing officers and the
Board. Counseling and mediation are confidential processes, and
I have never seen those cases.
Mr. Pastor. I don't know the process. Maybe that is why.
Ms. Silberman. We issue each year a section 301(h) report
which has been appended to our submission, and I think it is
fair to say in any given year most of our cases fall under
title 7. But again, there is an aberrational or a situational
description. One year if we have, as we did last year, an
enormous number of people who are filing under one dispute, and
that dispute is an equal pay-out dispute, then one year we
would get a lot of that.
I think basically that if you look at the statistics, we
get more cases on discrimination than anything else.
Mr. Pastor. Race?
Ms. Silberman. Across the board.
Mr. Pastor. Does an employee have to go through your
process before they file an EEOC complaint?
Ms. Silberman. They don't file an EEOC complaint. The way
it works, the employee with rights under the CAA, even if it is
under title 7, must come to us, request counseling, request
mediation, and if there was a dispute, it is not resolved
satisfactorily, they can either go through our administrative
processes, in which case we provide a hearing officer and the
confidential hearing, or they can go to Federal court de novo.
They go to court and start all over again.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Nothing.
[A question from Chairman Taylor and response follow:]
Question. For the record, insert all reprogramming actions
or other documents that required committee approval.
Response. No funds were reprogrammed between object classes
during fiscal year 2000, and no other documents that required
committee approval were submitted.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE HOYER
[Questions from Representative Hoyer and responses follow:)
Question. Your recent fire-safety report took a year to
complete. Before you issued the final report, did you consider
any remedial action taken by the Architect or other changes in
circumstances that bore on your findings?
Response. Yes. Throughout the inspection process, Architect
representatives were given immediate notice of deficiencies
observed; they were also given advance copies of both versions
of the final report. All Architect comments in response were
noted and considered; and many of them were incorporated in the
final text. In addition, the reports emphasize throughout the
efforts of the Architect during 1999 to deal with fire safety
issues, and the recent progress in that regard.
Question. The Architect's office has criticized some
findings in your fire-safety report, including that you did not
take into account some documentation of the testing of various
fire protection systems. In this criticism valid?
Response. No. This same criticism was voiced by an
Architect representative during our investigation. We responded
by providing a detailed discussion explaining that the only
documentation provided was entirely inadequate, and inviting
any further submissions or explanations. None ever followed. We
have also repeatedly requested the Architect's Office, in
writing, to advise us what testing and maintenance schedules it
intends to follow in the future, and have not received any
response. Based on the inspectors' observations and the records
provided by the Architect, it remains our firm conviction that
the fire safety systems have not been subjected to the
necessary tests, as detailed in our reports.
Unresolved Safety and Health Issues
Question. Can you tell the Subcommittee whether you have
any other investigations in progress or pending that may bear
on the Fiscal 2001 Architect's budget request?
Response. Yes. Formal citations are likely to issue as a
result of some of the more serious violations found in our
recent fire safety report, although it will be several weeks
before we can provide the kind of quantitative information
which will lend itself to financial projections. In addition, I
have attached a copy of a memo sent to the Architect on various
occasions last year which attempts to list all of the open
unresolved occupational health and safety issues. The very
length of the list of open issues suggests that it is pertinent
to your budget inquiry.
Question. Your budget documents say you'll make a
supplemental request ``in the event the Office of Compliance
vacates the Library of Congress during this fiscal year.'' Do
you plan to move out of the Adams building, and if so, why?
Response. Our current space in the Adams building is
adequate for our needs, and we have no plans to vacate our
current offices. Since the space belongs to the Library of
Congress, we would have to relocate our offices if the Library
wanted us to vacate them.
Question. Your budget documents also indicate that you'll
need more staff if the GPO, the GAO, and the Library fall under
the Accountability Act more so than they do now. In such a
change under active consideration by the appropriate
committee(s) of either House?
Response. As far as we know, there are no changes under
active consideration.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Ms. Silberman, we appreciate your
report, and we will be contacting you perhaps as we go through
it.
Ms. Silberman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
WITNESSES
DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR
BARRY B. ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WILLIAM J. GAINER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
POLLY E. HODGES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Mr. Taylor. We will now take up the Fiscal Year 2001 budget
request of the Congressional Budget Office. We have Director
Crippen, and we also have Mr. Barry Anderson, the Deputy
Director. Welcome to both of you.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Before we proceed, let me indicate the budget
request, CBO is requesting $28.5 million for fiscal year 2001.
This would fund three additional positions beyond the 225
planned for fiscal year 2000 budget.
Your prepared statement has been distributed, gentlemen,
and you can summarize or just do whatever.
Gentlemen, we will hold a minute and see if you need
anything before you start.
Go ahead.
CBO'S APPROPRIATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. Crippen. Thank you for the opportunity. I want to make
just a few comments this morning, which will only take a minute
or two. First, I want to thank you and the committee for the
pay raise you granted to me and my Deputy last year--not only
on our behalf but, more importantly, on behalf of all of our
colleagues, because they were capped below us, so there was
salary compression going on. That, I think was part of the
problem of CBO losing more people in the past than it was able
to hire.
You also gave us limited bonus authority last year, which
we are grateful for. We are employing that authority both in
recruiting, because we are able to offer some small signing
bonuses, and to reward performance. We have eliminated cost-of-
living increases for managers, and they are now rewarded
exclusively on performance.
Mr. Chairman, I first appeared before you not quite a year
ago--in fact, our first anniversary at CBO is tomorrow, I
believe--and reported that in 1998, CBO lost many more staff
than we were able to replace. The actual level of FTEs in 1998
was down to 205--from an actual level of 227 as recently as
1997 and an authorized level of 232.
I am happy to report that the trend has reversed. We were
able to employ 215 FTEs last year and expect to reach 225 by
this year. Our request for next year will allow us to reach
228, just one more than we had in 1997 and three more than this
year. We hope to reach our full complement of 232 in 2002.
REDUCED APPROPRIATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2000
So why do we need this increase to fund just three more
FTEs? Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to return to last year. You
asked us after we submitted our budget if there was any way we
could reduce our request for 2000, given your likely tight
allocation. After analyzing the time we thought it would take
to recruit and hire people we hoped to add, and the ability to
reprogram some 1999 funds, we were able to reduce our request
for this current year by $600,000. Our revised request resulted
in an increase of under 2 percent for CBO for the current
fiscal year. Combining this year with our request for next
year, CBO would have an increase of 11 percent over the 2
years, far below any of our sister agencies. Both their
requests and their subsequent appropriations far exceeded ours.
I hope you are not surprised to know that I believe in
budgets and budgeting for planning, for setting priorities, for
establishing real resource constraints. That is why, Mr.
Chairman, I agreed to reduce our request for this current
fiscal year, because I thought we could make some adjustments
and live within the reduction. But now we need to regain some
of that ground.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 2001
This is a well-constructed and easily defensible budget. It
was built from the ground up and not simply extrapolated from
prior years. For example, Mr. Chairman, we discovered we could
change equipment and do away with 50 percent of our telephone
lines. We are moving to less expensive data processing. Our
library is becoming more virtual. All of those savings are
explicit in our request and not subsumed in increases
elsewhere.
Like most of your bill, our budget is people and computers:
86 percent people, 8 percent computers. We need to build back
our strength toward our authorized FTE level. Our request, as I
said, gets us back to where we were in 1997. We are adjusting
pay schedules to help us compete with agencies such as the
Federal Reserve and the World Bank. We are rewarding
performance. We are recruiting heavily. And you can see the
results.
We need to restore the reductions in this year's data--
processing budget. Overall, Mr. Chairman, we are happy to
report projected surpluses in the budget as a whole. I assure
you there are no surpluses built into this request. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
PRICE INCREASES FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS
Mr. Taylor. You have touched on the salary increases and
the problems you have had in that area. It is just a small
amount, I think $18,000, but you are asking for a 10 percent
increase in the subscription prices. How do we justify that?
Mr. Crippen. In two ways, Mr. Chairman. First, subscription
prices have historically gone up more than inflation. Most of
the journals we subscribe to are academic or limited-interest
journals, so there is only one in the world. There is not much
competition out there. Second, as I mentioned, we are in the
process, of converting our library to as much a virtual library
as we can--to make it available to people on their desktops and
also eliminate the need for library space. That, frankly, may
take a bit of investment money up front, with a long-term
payoff.
INCREASE FOR ADP SPENDING
Mr. Taylor. Can you explain the $454,000 increase for ADP-
related items?
Mr. Crippen. Much of the reduction we took in our request
for fiscal year 2000 was taken out of ADP. Some of it was
offset by purchases for ADP made in 1999 by reprogramming
funds. But we need to get back to the standard, if you will,
for expenditures for both hardware and, next year increasingly,
software. We obviously, along with all the other agencies, got
through Y2K quite well, but we are now back to needing to
upgrade software, including some that will be needed to better
track appropriations; 100,000 is for that software.
[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follow:]
Fiscal Year 1999 Reprogramming Requests
Mr. Taylor. For the record please supply all reprogramming
requests for fiscal year 1999 and their disposition.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, CBO received approval to
reprogram funds for two projects. The first project involved
replacing the current House and Senate All Purpose Table system
and was projected to cost $195,000. Since that is an ongoing
project, the final cost to replace the system is not yet known.
Our total expenditures as of December 31, 1999, were $72,400,
which included $32,100 for software development and $40,300 for
equipment and other services.
The second reprogramming request approved was for $756,000
to purchase a variety of hardware and software needed to
support our Y2K upgrade efforts, help relocate our network
servers to a more secure location, and replace old high-speed
mainframe printers. Because of small variances in the final
cost and a decision to downsize one of the mainframe printers,
the actual cost of the projects in that request was $692,000,
or $64,000 less than the amount estimated.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. Well, I, too, want to congratulate you on your
salary increase. But we were just trying to get you back to
your mission of making sure that the CBO was a nonpartisan
congressional support agency. And so I congratulate you for
going that route.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. As it has always been.
Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crippen, as you know, in the last 4, 5 years there has
been a very strong advocacy around here about reducing budgets
across the board, attempting to cut back the rate of growth of
government. Outside of my defense responsibilities and other
responsibilities, I have drawn that line pretty firmly, VA,
HUD, et cetera.
The one area where I think sometimes we err by presuming we
can make savings involves this subcommittee and particularly
the work of CBO. I must say I come from the California
Legislature where the legislative analysts provided functions
that would compete, hope to compete, with the work that CBO
does. It is very important work. I frankly think that the
Congress will do a lot better job with their cost-cutting if we
have better information, not less information. So I would like
to see CBO become a strong advocate as to why the legislative
branch, not just CBO, but the legislative branch, which
receives a fraction of our dollars, ought to be healthy in
order to better carry out our work. So this voice at least
would add, in addition to the national defense in terms of
increasing our funding, I personally think we ought to be very
careful about what we do here.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome. I am pleased that you received a pay raise. I am
not pleased that many of your employees received 4.4 percent as
opposed to 4.94 percent, which, as you know, that all House
employees are getting. Can you explain the problem there? You
have trouble keeping people at the top. We need to keep top-
notch people at all levels. That is a half a point difference.
That is a big deal for people--not so much at our level, yours
and mine--but it is a big deal to people at lower levels . So I
am concerned. What are we doing about that? It is nice that all
of us at the top got a raise. We Members, of course, got a 3.4%
and not a 4.94. But in any event, tell me about that.
JANUARY PAY RAISE
Mr. Crippen. We predicated our budget, as did most of the
other agencies before this committee, on the President's
assumption last year, which was the 4.4 percent. As you know,
through your efforts and others', pay got raised by 4.8
percent. By that time we had reduced our request by the
$600,000 that I mentioned to try to accommodate the tight
allocation you folks had. So at the end of the day, we had a
1.8 percent increase overall, and we weren't able to go to 4.94
percent to fund the last 0.5 percent of the increase.
We agreed with you fully, and we have been working hard to
competitively pay our people in the $40,000 to $65,000 range.
And we have instituted a new policy that only nonmanagers get
the COLA; the 15 percent of our personnel who are managers no
longer automatically get it. Their increases are going to be
based on merit and other things.
Mr. Hoyer. How much would it cost you to do the half point
for the balance of the employees that we are talking about?
Mr. Crippen. For this year, it would be just under $60,000.
It would add about $85,000 to next year's base.
Mr. Hoyer. What is your total budget this year?
Mr. Crippen. $26 million.
Mr. Hoyer. We can't find $60,000 to make these people
whole? It is not so much whole even in the half point. I mean,
the managers understand. The managers, the higher up you get,
you get more pay. But also I mean they can--Mr. Lewis and I
take the position every 2 years they could fire us if they
don't think we are doing a good job or whatever. It is the
midlevel people, that we don't treat with respect.
Of course, in our society what we pay is what we value, in
effect.
Is there any way we can find that $60,000 to adjust those
folks? As you know, it was Mr. Thomas who allowed it to happen
for House employees, made sure that we went from the 4.4
percent to the 4.94 percent that we are doing, and included the
locality adjustment, which is not always done. But now I think
yours are the only legislative employees that are not getting
the full 4.94 percent. I don't know that I am correct.
Mr. Crippen. It may well be. Again, our sister agencies did
receive increases in the 5, 6, and 7 percent range for this
year, compared with ours. So they have a little more
flexibility than we have. Clearly, we can look again.
Mr. Hoyer. Would you please look again? I will follow up
again, and I will talk to the Chairman and perhaps work with
the Chairman and Mr. Lewis and see if we can find $60,000,
maybe a supplemental is coming up here. And if you could find
it, I just think it would be good for morale. I think it is
good policy, too. And so you understand, I tell all my Federal
employees and Federal employee unions, the people who are not
performing will not get raises. They don't have to get step
increases, and they don't have to get raises. But my
presumption is, if you don't get good people, you have got a
management problem, not a performance problem. It is tough for
managers to tell people that.
Let me ask you another question. How much money are you
spending on outside consultants to perform the day-to-day work
of the CBO that would otherwise be performed in-house?
Cost of Consultants
Mr. Crippen. Well, the total for consultants last year was
a little over $100,000. A good piece of that was, frankly, for
legal fees. We have two in-house lawyers who focus primarily on
budget law, but we had an employment case in which we needed
outside counsel to help see us through, so that took a piece.
We also had some increase in consultants that was associated
with Y2K. So last year was unusual, although not very high.
I expect this year's total to be much less because,
hopefully, we are over any further need for outside legal
counsel, and we certainly got through Y2K and all of those
things. So my guess it will go back to around $20,000 or so.
Mr. Anderson. Part of the increase resulted from our
transition, too. There were some consultants who helped us for
a couple of months when we first arrived. We won't be repeating
that.
Mr. Hoyer. So historically the level is about $20-, 25,000.
You bumped up to $100,000, and you expect it to bump back down
again.
Mr. Crippen. That bump, as I said, was not unusual. In
1996, I think, the expenditures were about $100,000 as well. It
depends on our need for outside counsel.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask you another question, not on your
budget, but on policy. I came from Maryland, as you know, and
in Maryland, regarding the budget, the Governor can override
it, but rarely does. Those involved, it is comprised of our
Comptroller and Governor and the Budget Office. I had proposed
back in 1981, 1982, in the aftermath of a struggle between the
Reagan administration and the CBO over budget figures and whom
to trust, the creation of a board of revenue estimates, which
would be composed of the Director of OMB, the Director of CBO,
and the Federal Reserve Chairman. And the idea was that each of
those had a staff in place that could offer a conclusion as to
what the revenue would be.
In any event, you have got to be flexible on this. In any
event, because of the argument as to who do you trust, OMB or
CBO, Democrats are saying, well, OMB is going to just do their
Stockman thing, and they are saying, you just do your
Democratic thing, and those three officials would have to agree
on a revenue estimate.
What do you think about that idea, which came to mind again
last year when we had the directed scoring?
There always has been a concern as to how to get a revenue
estimate that one can trust. We have been lucky in this last 7
or 8 years where CBO's was more wrong than OMB's most of the
time. What do you think of that idea?
Revenue Estimates
Mr. Crippen. I'm very sympathetic to thinking that would
help take the differences out of the policy debate. I first
started working with Howard Baker, as you know, in the 1980s,
and we were on the other side of the Stockman versus CBO
issues. He looked at me at one point and said, ``why can't you
guys agree on numbers? We shouldn't be debating numbers, we
should be debating the policies here.'' And he was right. You
are right. There have been a number of processes since then
that have helped, frankly, get us closer on a lot of estimates.
We don't disagree over many numbers, but when we do they
become very visible, like $10 billion last year when we were
directed to take OMB's estimates instead of our own. We are a
lot closer on most spending estimates than we used to be. The
differences on revenue, while they are substantial, have not
been based on anything other than slight differences in
economic assumptions. So there is no basic disagreement between
us, but certainly anything we can do to make us come closer
would be useful.
There is a process now in which we issue a joint report on
defense outlays, because that is an area where there have been
differences in the past. That process has helped for a number
of years. Up until 2 or 3 years ago, we were very close. But
the last couple of years, OMB has been coming in lower and
lower on defense outlays. So it worked for a while.
There are processes we have employed in the past that help,
but taking the debate over numbers out is one of the reasons
that we chose to do three variations of the baseline this year.
Last year, the baseline itself became much more of an issue
than the policies you wanted to debate. So that is something I
am fully in favor of, whatever the mechanism is.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. I will pursue it with you
because I think it is a good idea, talk to some on the other
side of the aisle, and see if we can reach some sort of
agreement that might work for everybody involved.
Let me echo the Ranking Member's comments. CBO's strength
is that it is trusted by all sides. To the extent Democrats or
Republicans undermine that, they undermine a very important
aspect, it seems to me, of having to rely on what ought to be a
nonpartisan agency. As you know, some of us believe that your
predecessor did not come up with answers that were hoped for or
expected, and that hurt her. In our eyes she strengthened
independence, but she didn't always come up with answers that
we thought were right.
But I would echo that you have a unique position and,
therefore, a clear responsibility to maintain CBO's
credibility, so the system and this institution and the country
will be better served.
Mr. Crippen. I fully agree. It is my hope and intention
that CBO be an institution that gets better as time goes by.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your
report, working with you, and encouraging you in this coming
year.
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FINANCIAL MANAGERS COUNCIL
WITNESSES
RICHARD L. BROWN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR OPERATIONS,
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JANET HALE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BETH HUGHES-BROWN, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
POLLY HODGES, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
RUSS FOLLIN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STUART PREGNALL, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Taylor. We will now take up the Financial Managers
Council, a new entity that was formally recognized in the
fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. This is a group of all
the legislative branch agency financial officers. Their goal is
to improve financial management throughout the legislative
branch of government.
I would like to welcome the co-chairmen, Mr. Richard Brown
and Mr. John Webster with us today. And if you would like to
make your remarks.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the committee for its support of the Council and our efforts to
improve legislative branch financial management. The Council is
a voluntary group, and with your permission I would like to
introduce the other members of the Council that are here today:
Janet Hale, House of Representatives; Beth Brown, Office of
Compliance; Polly Hodges, from the Congressional Budget Office;
and Stuart Pregnall and Russ Follin, Architect of the Capitol.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, we can proceed directly to any
questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
A Shared Financial Management System
Mr. Taylor. Well, I will start with questions. Can you
explain to the committee the need for $250,000 to determine
requirements for a legislative branch-wide financial management
system?
Mr. Webster. Mr. Chairman, most legislative branch agencies
are planning to replace their financial systems within the next
5 years. The Council believes that a unique opportunity exists
for the purchase and installation of a shared financial system.
A joint operations study has just been initiated to determine
the cost and benefits of a shared financial system effort. The
Council believes a shared financial system is feasible, and the
next step after the concept of operations is completed would be
to develop a requirements document for the shared procurement
effort. The budget increase of $250,000 is needed to support
the development of the requirements document.
Mr. Taylor. Can you give us some estimate of what this
project might save if it comes to an end? Is there any opinion
about these sort of savings that we might have?
Mr. Brown. Well, it is difficult for us at this point, Mr.
Chairman, to be specific about that, but we do believe there
will be savings. We believe there are opportunities for savings
in a consolidated audit of financial statements. We believe
there is an opportunity for savings in maintenance costs by
maintaining one system instead of several. We believe there are
opportunities for savings as well in ensuring reliability and
usefulness of the financial information that now comes from
various systems. Keeping all financial information in one
system is much less complicated than having to deal with a
variety of systems.
Mr.Taylor. I think I might have another question, but I
will yield to Mr. Pastor if he has any questions.
[Questions from Chairman Taylor and responses follow:]
Question. What improvements will we get from such a system?
Answer. A shared financial system would make possible a
number of improvements. It would:
Facilitate the preparation and audit of a single
consolidated financial statement for the Legislative Branch,
reducing audit costs;
Save money by spreading the cost of maintaining financial
systems among the various entities;
Improve the consistency of financial information,
Contribute to an informed Congress, and
Assure the public that Legislative Branch assets are being
safeguarded, financial results are reported accurately, and
laws and regulations are being complied with.
Question. Does each agency agree that this effort is needed
(including the House and Senate)?
Answer. The Council adopted a vision, goals, and strategies
statement, which is an attachment to the Council's hearing
statement. A major goal included in that statement is to
operate integrated financial management systems may be shared
among legislative entities. We believe that all entities agree
with that goal. The concept of operations study is the next
important step to provide each agency with specific information
to move forward with realizing the Council's goal of shared
systems.
Question. Please document for the record that this effort
will be supported by each agency.
Answer. Six out of nine legislative entities have formally
accepted the Council's Vision, Goals, and Strategies
statement--the House, Senate, and the Capitol Police have not
formally accepted the statement. However, we believe that all
agency participants believe in the goal of a shared system.
Question. Can you give us an estimate of the overall cost
of such a system if it were to be installed (development,
startup and annual recurring costs)? What savings could we
expect?
Answer. The cost of a new financial management system is a
multi-million dollar item. The concept of operations will
outline the costs, benefits, and risks associated with
implementing a shared financial system. We expect the concept
of operations study will be completed by this summer.
Question. Do you have sufficient contracting authority to
expend these funds? Do you have the necessary staff resources
to supervise and monitor the project?
Answer. One of the deliverables of the concept of
operations study is a description of various contracting
vehicles that could be used to acquire a shared system.
Depending on the results of the study, additional authority may
be needed.
The Council does not have a permanent staff. Council work
is done by the staff of the legislative entities. We believe
that this shared staffing model will be able to support the
project.
IMPROVED PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Pastor. Well, just it is a very small thing, but I
think for many people it is a big thing. In this financial
system, that management system, will you be able to pay the
staff every 2 weeks?
Mr. Brown. This effort is not designed to address the
payroll system, just the financial management system.
Mr. Pastor. What do we need to do to be able to do that for
the staff in the Members' offices? I hoped we might be able to
do this with the new financial system. So if we are not going
to be able to do it, what alternative do you have for me?
Mr. Brown. It would require a different payroll system than
the House is currently offering.
Mr. Pastor. I realize that. My issue is how do I get from
what we have today to every 2 weeks? I know we have to devise a
new payroll system. Who would have to do it, and would you be
in charge of it?
Mr. Brown. No. The House would be in charge of that.
Mr. Pastor. Since she is a member of the committee, maybe I
can ask her.
Ms. Hale. The House would have to make that decision within
the House Administration Committee. The House is looking at a
new payroll system. We are going through a design process now,
and I think probably we can bring you up to speed on that
project.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor, it would be very easy if we just
paid everybody the minimum wage.
Mr. Pastor. Then the merit and the cost of living, then
there would be three things you would have to include.
Mr. Lewis. I thought we did pay them the minimum wage.
No questions.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen.
TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
----------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
PATRICIA WAND, UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW
LIBRARIES
Mr. Taylor. We will now go to the outside witnesses. We
have----
Ms. Wand. Patricia Wand.
Mr. Taylor. We have the statements of the witnesses, and
they have been given to the members of the subcommittee, and
they will be printed in the record. We will allow 5 minutes for
all testimony from each witness.
Good to have you here. If you would like to make your
statement.
Ms. Wand. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen. I
am Patricia Wand, university librarian at American University.
It is a pleasure to be here with you today representing four of
the Nation's library associations. Collectively we represent
thousands of individual librarians and information
professionals as well as institutions and libraries that serve
our communities across the Nation.
We are very pleased that this subcommittee has been so
supportive of the Library of Congress in the past, and we hope
and expect that support to continue.
The Library is poised to meet the many challenges of our
information age. I would like to emphasize several programs
today. The Library of Congress request of $428.1 million for
the Fiscal Year 2001, which includes the authority to obligate
$33.6 million in receipts, positions the Library to realize the
benefits of its ongoing digitized and printed heritage and
collections.
The libraries across the Nation depend heavily on the
Library of Congress, and in particular four programs that I
might emphasize and focus on today: First, preservation and
technology initiatives; the Library services to the blind and
physically handicapped; and the law library.
The Nation faces a dual challenge today in preserving its
cultural and historical heritage. How do we address the
fragility of the printed past at the same time that we address
the volatility of the digitized information and management? We
urge you to permanently authorize two programs that the Library
of Congress has under way in order to address these issues.
The first is the Mass Deacidification Program, and the
second is the National Digital Library Program. Our Nation
relies on the preservation and access to materials that
chronicle our political events, record scientific
breakthroughs, and, of course, record cultural milestones, to
name just a few things that are preserved in printed formats
and in digitized formats.
To preserve the past, libraries collaborate on various
preservation methods, and the Mass Deacidification Program is
one that addresses the issue of acidic paper. So many of our
documents are literally falling apart on their own, and the
Library of Congress and other libraries have experimented over
the years to find the optimal solution to this problem. It
doesn't retroact on the deterioration of the paper, but it
balances the chemical composition of the pages once the books
are treated.
We support the fiscal year 2001 request by the Library of
Congress that would make permanent the Mass Deacidification
Program so that we can share with them in the goal of saving
more than a million volumes in the next 5 years. In addition,
we strongly support the request to make permanently authorized
the National Digital Library initiative. The Library has
contributed significantly to making our cultural resources
accessible on the network, and libraries of all types are
joining in partnership with the Library of Congress. It is very
important that we support this ongoing program so that the
Library can continue in this leadership position.
Libraries, as you know, have a unique opportunity and
unique role in preserving and making accessible digitized
information. The National Library Services for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped is a critically important service to the
Nation. We support the minimum request of $48,983,000 for this
program, and that includes mandatory salary costs and covering
price level increases.
The law library, with over 2.3 million documents, is the
world's largest legal collection, of vital importance to the
Nation. We strongly support the budget request of $8.2 million
to support 16 full-time positions as well as supporting the
automation program of that library.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, as the Library of Congress
celebrates its 200th anniversary through the next year in
service to the Congress and the Nation, we have a unique
opportunity to ensure that all of the constituencies benefit
from the Library's acquisitions that pertain to our Nation's
cultural and historic resources. Funding to assist the Library
in strengthening its infrastructure is a key step in meeting
this important goal. Thank you for the opportunity to spend
time with you today. The American Library Association, the
Association of Research Libraries, the American Association of
Law Libraries and Special Library Association appreciate your
support and look forward to working with you on this project in
the future.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you Ms. Wand.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. We owe a lot of gratitude to the other Members
here. Mr. Lewis has served on this committee, and Mr. Pastor.
And I can report to you that not only are we working in the
area of digitalization, the center that has opened last summer,
but we are both expanding it from two directions. One, we have
negotiated and signed agreements with other countries to
digitize their library. We did two in this last quarter and
hope to increase that service because it is bringing in works
that we could never hope to attain in our Library, but can be
shared in the world and certainly in this country. And then we
have pilot programs going where we are working with our
education system to distribute the works. So we are--in our
Library of Congress, the 120 million items that we have.
So we are working on two areas, not only to acquire more
knowledge for the Library to be distributed through the
Library, but expanding the system so that more people can enjoy
and benefit from the works in the Library of Congress.
And of course, the ongoing items that you mentioned as far
as the blind where we are actually going to see how
digitalization can impact that, and there is a positive impact
going to come from that.
So we appreciate your statements and we are certainly
supportive.
Are there questions, Mr. Pastor?
Mr. Pastor. First of all, thank you for coming in and for
your testimony. But the Librarian informed us that as it deals
with people who have disabilities, especially the blind, that
they are undergoing a study which will probably take a year,
year and a half. And they are going to come back to us with
what we need to do in terms of appropriating money so that the
blind are able to get information off the Internet and other
means.
And so the Librarian is well aware of the these and the new
technologies and how we need to provide that information to the
blind. So we are very happy to hear that. And hopefully in the
next couple years, we will be at a point where they will have
access to all that material.
Ms. Wand. Well, the adapted technology is making great
strides. And it is very, very--the potential is very great in
this area. Libraries are working in conjunction with the
Library of Congress on this.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate very much your testimony. I was reminded of
two things when outside witnesses made presentations about the
relationship between this committee and the House library. The
one was in 1970, roughly, I was involved in a small, little
redistricting project in California. We had a digitizer with
computers attached. And to just draw lines on maps relating to
a few districts, we had a room about twice this size to handle
that digitizer.
Technology has changed radically and benefited all of us.
And the dialogue between people like yourself and libraries'
work and Congress, our authorizer looks askance at our
permanently authorizing things by way of appropriations, but at
the same time I understand the thrust of your comments.
The other thing I was reminded of as you were talking about
the programs involving braille, at one time an outside witness
some years ago presented to me, by way of Mr. Fazio, a
digitized version of Playboy magazine. My bride was very
interested in that.
Ms. Wand. Your mention of the hybrid library is important.
We are all facing this in libraries. We have to maintain the
print material, and we have to maintain the skills and all the
systems that support the print material, and at the same time
the technology layers, a whole other set of skills and concerns
on the cost and on the operations.
So I say that librarianship is one of the most exciting
professions to be in at this time because we have to be very
agile. We have to be learning all the time.
Mr. Taylor. I don't see digitalization as destroying the
book; on the contrary, I think it is going to enhance reading.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. I have no questions. Thank you.
Ms. Wand. I want to comment and compliment all of you on
your Web sites. They are very effective, very informative.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WITNESS
RIDLEY R. KESSLER, JR., REGIONAL DOCUMENTS LIBRARIAN, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW
LIBRARIES
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is Mr. Ridley Kessler of UNC
Chapel Hill.
Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Kessler. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Taylor. I hope the weather is mild in Chapel Hill.
Mr. Kessler. It has been very bad, sir. We ran out of milk
and bread, dog food and Jack Daniels, in that order. I come
here and see you have the same thing. So I have had all the
snow I want to see, and certainly all the hurricanes I want to
see.
Mr. Taylor. I understand.
Mr. Kessler. Thank you, gentlemen. I am glad to be here. I
am representing five national library associations in support
of the public printer's fiscal year 2001 budget request, $34.4
million for the Superintendent of Document salaries and expense
appropriations. This is something that is near and dear to our
heart because it is the heart of the Federal Depository Library
Program, which is a unique partnership between libraries and
the American public to provide government information to anyone
who wants it. Parts of this program date back actually to 1813
when the Congress of the United States passed Resolution Number
1, which said that House and Senate journals and other
documents ordered by those gentlemen would be given to the
universities and colleges in each State.
And I think that is important because I happen to gather
all of these historic vignettes from original documents in my
library that date from that time period, so this program is
still important today. And I hope in 2100 somebody will be here
from my library, and they will have some quaint little story in
which they used information from today that they can give to
your people that come after you.
The Federal Depository Library System represents a
partnership between the American Government and libraries, and
at the heart of it is 1,300 participating libraries that
represent almost every congressional district. And we are
providing tangible and electronic government publications to
all who need them, and everybody has equal access to this
information in whatever format that it comes in.
This $34.4 million that has been requested for documents,
salaries and expense appropriations will support the continuing
operation of the FDLB, its electronic transition plans, and
increased demands on the GPO access system. Parts of this
budget request include $1.6 million for that GPO access,
operating and hardware, cost of which is also included in that
public access, which is a very important part of the program.
There is also a request of $582,000 for five additional
depository library program positions, one of which is an
electronic collection development person.
There is $3.3 million for cataloguing, indexing to fund
four additional cataloguers to maintain and enhance the finding
aids available on GPO access, and there is also approximately
$1 million, which I think is a one-time request for the
depository printing expenses, which is mainly for the new
edition of the U.S. Code, which is one of the most heavily used
paper volumes in the Library.
Now I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, being a graduate of a
distinguished North Carolina law school, that the court systems
and law schools and law journals and lawyers refuse to accept
anything else but a printed citation from the source. So it is
important. It is also easier on old people who are used to
working with that. We use it in libraries, and also the public
use a combination of electronic and paper, going back and forth
almost seamlessly to each one.
We are supporting the GPO Access Program, which was, of
course, created by the GPO Electronic Information Access Act of
1993. And it is an award-winning digital collection, over 70
databases. It keeps growing in importance. There are over
104,000 titles from GPO servers, and there are over 68,000
titles from non-GPO servers. I believe that we are downloading
about 21 million documents every month, and it is growing about
4\1/2\ percent each month.
They are also finding aids that are on GPO Access to help
people get to the information that they need, a lot of which is
a browse and search option for locating materials on government
sites. These are important for people for locating materials,
where they are and how to get it. This is why we need those
extra Federal Depository Library Program positions for
collection development to go out and find it and for those
cataloguers who do untold, unappreciated work of telling us how
to get to it, including people in your districts.
To conclude, the Depository Library Program is a true
partner program in which participating libraries are building
and maintaining valuable historical collections of tangible
materials for permanent public access. At the same time, they
are presiding over substantial funds to serve each of your
constituents by providing access to electronic government
information.
Congressman Lewis, one of the things we are doing, for
instance, at the University of North Carolina and a lot of
other major research libraries, we are using digital
information provided to the program, and we are taking the
Environmental Systems Research Institute software from
Redlands, California, and we are able to map out statistics
that we get.
So this is a growing area. And I don't understand that, but
people that are younger than I am, who are talking with me, are
able to do astounding things.
And you were talking about taking weeks and weeks. It can
be done in one little place in about 30 minutes if you know
what you are doing. It is amazing.
We think this is an important program. This money will be
put to good use. It goes directly to the people of the United
States through libraries. We hope that you will continue to
support our efforts. We would like to be able to count on you
to do this. And I thank you very much for allowing me to come
appear before you today.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. None.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
WITNESS
DENNIS ROTH, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL 75, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
ENGINEERS
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Dennis Roth, the Congressional Research
Employees Association. Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, my name is Dennis Roth. I am president of the
Congressional Research Employees Association, IFPTE Local 75,
and testifying today on behalf of the more than 550 bargaining
unit members of which nearly 350 are members of the union.
I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, not only for the strong financial
support you have shown towards the Library and CRS, but also
for your policy support. Last year you gave the Library
authority to participate in the Metrochek program and began
funding for the replacement of ergonomically unsound furniture.
As of mid-January at our last Metrochek distribution, 1,916
employees received Metrocheks indicating that the staff had
responded overwhelmingly to this initiative and are doing their
part to reduce congestion, save energy, and protect our
environment. In addition, the program has been a significant
morale booster.
With respect to replacing the outmoded furniture, we seek
your strong encouragement of the Library to work with the
unions and staff because these decisions directly affect us as
final users. Only yesterday was a grievance settlement offered
to us over the failure to purchase ergonomic furniture for a
brand new CRS information research center in the Madison
Building for CRS staff that opened only a few months ago. This
grievance would not have had to have been filed if the union
and staff were consulted before the furniture purchases were
made.
Over this past year CREA has been very busy representing
the interests of staff. We negotiated a reorganization
agreement, two agreements on the reconstruction of the CRS work
space, and continued bargaining our master contract. Shortly
CREA will be putting a telework proposal on the table. We know
that the House adopted a telecommuting policy last year and
that the last--at least one member of this subcommittee was
very interested in the topic. We would appreciate any
assistance you could give us in having the Library adopt a
telework policy for its staff, particularly the Congressional
Research Service. If you have been able to develop a policy, so
should we.
On February 14th, 1999, the reorganization of the
Congressional Research Service went into effect. Two existing
divisions at that time, the economics division and the science,
technology and medicine division, were eliminated, and staff
were dispersed to other positions. When CREA officially
responded to the proposed reorganization, we noted, and I
quote, ``At issue is whether this particular reorganization
plan, which the Director devised without consulting staff or
frontline managers, will actually enhance our service to
Congress.''.
In the survey itself, staff questioned this continually. To
determine the effects of nearly 1-year-old reorganization on
CRS staff, we conducted a survey at the end of last month. As
was noted in my testimony that was submitted last week, the
analysis was not completed at the time due to the weather
problems of getting to work. We have now been able to do so and
request that this supplement, which I prepared 30 copies, be
added to our testimony.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection.
[Clerk's note.--The following supplement has been supplied
to the committee:]
Mr. Roth. Thank you.
We bring these results to you not to hurt the Service, but
to demonstrate that a lot of work has to be done on the human
side of the reorganization. We want to work with CRS management
to address the problems identified by the survey; however, we
are concerned how receptive CRS management may be to our
request and therefore ask you to encourage or, if need be,
instruct CRS management to work with CREA and staff on
restoring the previous overall positive work environment that
has been greatly eroded by the reorganization. If such actions
are not undertaken, we are concerned that staff will depart at
a rate much higher than anticipated and greatly hindering the
ability of the CRS to be the highly professional organization
that you have been accustomed to. We can, working together,
attempt to restore the esprit de corps of the Service, but we
need a sincere opportunity to do so.
In all the questions asked in the survey, staff felt more
negative than positive about the effects of the reorganization,
but what really stands out and needs immediate attention is
staff morale. Seventy percent of the respondents felt that the
organization had a negative impact on the morale of their
colleagues, and 55 percent felt that it had had a negative
impact on their own morale.
The last concern we would like to raise with you this
morning is the rapid departure of expertise from the Service.
While we support our succession initiative through the graduate
recruit program, these new CRS analysts and librarians cannot
fill the gaps created by the departure of our senior staff. Our
concern is while this drain continues, we do not see efforts to
replace lost expertise. What we do see, however, are several
supervisory positions being open and being filled at many
levels equivalent to our analyst positions. We question not
only the level of these positions, but also if this is the
appropriate time to fill positions that have no direct
analytical contact with the Congress.
In conclusion, thank you for your past support, and we hope
you can offer further support in the areas identified in my
testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. I think this subcommittee has tried to address
the problem of succession, especially in CRS. It was beginning
last year, when I started serving on this subcommittee, that I
became aware of the need for a succession program because
people were retiring and that expertise was leaving. I recall
in this year's testimony there have been some problems because
of the national overall low unemployment that possibly CRS
can't compete for some of the graduate students coming from
universities. That seems to be a problem. So we are trying to
get more flexibility to try and do that.
Mr. Roth. Our concern is with the more senior-level staff
that is leaving that take a wealth of knowledge and experience.
I think they are losing at a rapid rate, part of which I
mentioned in the survey, that there has been a tremendous
morale deflator in that people who are leaving--and basically
my age in their fifties, you really have to be a top knowledge
person to go out and find a job at an age group, even though we
have age discrimination laws, we all know once you get over a
certain age it is not very easy. But these are people who are
not retired, but yet moving on to other jobs. So it is a big
concern that we have.
I am from one of the divisions that was eliminated, which
was the economics division.
Mr. Pastor. In your survey you talk about morale. What are
the morale deflators that people cite as reasons to leave early
indicating a succession may not work.
Mr. Roth. Well, the succession plan is good, but it is not
sufficient, I guess.
Mr. Pastor. But you mentioned several times that you have
done a survey, and people are leaving because they are not
happy, especially at those senior levels.
Mr. Roth. A few have, and we are afraid more will.
Mr. Pastor. My question is what is happening that is
causing them to leave?
Mr. Roth. I think it is a conflict on what constitutes
research. Research can be pure research like scientists or
economists do, looking at the big problems, applying their
theory, and policy recommendations. Other research can be
looking at existing legislation, tracking the pluses and
minuses and doing that.
It appears that one of the directions of this
reorganization was to eliminate what I call the pure research,
the economic and scientific research, and focus mostly on what
is there, what is legislative. So you have these people saying,
well, I can't do this anymore. This is what I have done. We are
talking about people that have done it their whole careers. As
you know, the Director says we could all probably retire in the
next 10 years. You are not going to be able to drive it in that
direction.
Mr. Pastor. So it is the focus now of the CRS that is
causing so many people to look at where they are at and
alternatives for leaving.
Mr. Roth. Right.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. You anticipated my initial question. I was
scratching my head. Your first point related to ergonomically
sound furniture. Would you explain that to this country boy
from California?
Mr. Roth. We moved into the Madison Building in 1980. At
that time the furniture was designed for typewriters, and they
have typewriter arms, and nothing is adjustable. The chairs
they have made some progress on, but it is the bilevel tables
where we now all use computers. In fact, it is almost
impossible to find a typewriter in the Library anymore. And in
order for it to be--for posture, for carpal tunnel syndrome,
back problems, things should be certain heights, certain
levels, particularly if you use it at a pretty heavy level.
And so what we are doing is replacing these old 19--
probably purchased in the late 1970s--furniture with things
that you can put a computer on and adjust it to give you the
right eye level, right back level, and chairs that give you
proper support. And 20 years is probably a good time anyway to
start replacing furniture.
And we see more and more instances of carpal tunnel
problems in the Library, which can be easily dealt with if they
have the proper furniture or get some training on what it
should be.
Mr. Lewis. Have you actually gotten some information that
has indicated to you by the evidence that carpal tunnel
syndrome has been impacted by the furniture? Has there been
some analysis made? I remember being here when we actually
furnished the Madison Building on this subcommittee, and it is
just the first time I have heard this from any branch that I
have been working with. I would be interested in that. Do you
have studies that actually show that?
Mr. Roth. I have talked to Health Services. I didn't go to
them this year to get the number of instances there. But just
by walking around you see many more people wearing the wrist
braces or talking to you about having to get surgery or having
to stay away from computers for a while. It is a growing
problem.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis, Mr. Pastor, I want you to recognize
this. When my pickup comes up to remove this old table, which
is probably ergonomically not correct, and that 1790s side
table over there, there is no charge, I am just replacing it. I
will bring in one.
Mr. Lewis. Frankly, I wasn't going to make light of it, but
in my own offices in California and here, you know, we have 20-
year-old, 30-year-old furniture I know that the carpal tunnel
syndrome problem has been a growing problem in our society
generally in recent years, but I am not sure--I am just
scratching my head because I am sure your personnel would
rather have pay increases than they would changing furniture.
Mr. Roth. Having talked to some people and the pain they go
through, I am not sure they would take money for not having the
pain.
Mr. Lewis. Scientifically if you can relate it to the
furniture they are using.
Mr. Roth. The Library has had a work ergonomics committee
since maybe the early 1990s, and they have identified a lot of
the problems and have tried to do things that are simple. A lot
of times you get a footstool. A footstool can be four telephone
books stacked up.
Mr. Lewis. Do we have an ergonomic committee in the
legislative branch here? If the Library is doing it, we sure
ought to consider doing it.
Mr. Taylor. I am not sure whether the compliance committee
has that sort of thing. We have, Mr. Lewis, appropriated money
last year to improve in some areas. Certainly where you have a
computer, maybe different furniture may be necessary to utilize
that. Of course, it wasn't on the screen years ago, so you
don't have perhaps a place for it. Beyond that, I am not sure
how much money.
How much money did we put in, Ed, last year? About
$700,000.
Mr. Lombard. Several hundred.
Mr. Taylor. Several hundred. So we are attacking it in that
area.
Mr. Lewis. Please don't look it up right now. I much prefer
to consult with you later about this.
Mr. Roth. Some of the solutions are very simple, like I
say, telephone books stacking a computer up higher so your eye
level is proper. But it is an awareness of knowing what is
wrong in order to do what is right. That is why these
committees are very helpful. We call it Ergo-tips that we have
given out to people so they know when they look at it, this
pain in the neck is not--.
Mr. Lewis. Our staff needs to help us know this stuff.
Mr. Taylor. I can tell you that in the Congressional
reading room, no one there is a point that you all might see
that has happened. Indeed, once we had a House reading room and
a Senate reading room, and now we only have one of those, which
either speaks to the reading capacity or ability of the Senate,
or maybe it is economy that has done it. But I know I would go
in there, and it is comfortable to go in and read.
Mr. Lewis. Since you are going to complete your hearing so
early this year, I think maybe the professional staff will have
a chance to spend some time with me regarding this subject.
Mr. Taylor. Good.
Thank you Mr. Roth.
Mr. Pastor. Could I ask one question?
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
Mr. Pastor. On page 2 you say, ``We would appreciate any
assistance you could give us in having the Library adopt the
telework policy for staff, particularly CRS.'' Would you like
to add more information to that for me?
Mr. Roth. Well----
Mr. Pastor. More detail.
Mr. Roth. We are negotiating our master contract, and we
right now don't have telework, which we see as sort of a
limited basis the way the House has adopted it. There may be
times where you could stay home a day or two maybe on a special
project. The technology has come along so far that it really
makes it easy to do.
We have had some resistance from CRS management saying that
it is not really appropriate for us because they want us here
24 hours a day 7 days a week is the best way to serve Congress.
And if we are at home, we could still answer requests. We can
telephone you. We are responsible enough to know that if you
have a major bill on the floor, and I am responsible for
tracking that particular area, I am not going to ask to work at
home that day.
We have to overcome that hurdle that we know when we can do
it and when we can't do it. And if that is the case, then I
think we can get a policy in there. But we have the sort of
resistance; somebody loses. But whether the Congress is going
to lose or the fear of that is there every time you make a
decision, that is the other side of the coin.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Roth. Copies.
----------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
SAUL SCHNIDERMAN, AFSCME LOCAL 2910
SHARON KORSEE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD
KEN DUNLAP, CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is Mr. Schniderman of the
AFSCME Local 2910.
Mr. Schniderman.
Mr. Schniderman. Thank you for getting my name right. I am
Saul Schniderman, the president of AFSCME Local 2910, the
Library of Congress Professional Guild, representing about
1,400 professionals at the Library of Congress. And I am here
with Sharon Korsee with the Guild and Ken Dunlap, our chief
negotiator.
We presented to you some written testimony, which I would
like to invite you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member, and
your staff and the committee members to read as sort of a soup-
to-nuts position of the Guild dealing with everything from fire
safety at the Library to succession planning at the Library of
Congress, which we support, to the security program at the
Library, where we have some deep reservations.
I want to start off this morning by, first of all, thanking
you for your support of the transit fare subsidy at the Library
of Congress. It shows a real commitment that you have made to
the staff at the Library. And because we are such a staff-
driven institution, we can now say that we share in the same
benefit that the House and Senate staffs do. So thank you on
behalf of all those employees who are participating in that
program.
The only topic I wish to bring to your attention this
morning is funding for the National Digital Library. I
understand Mr. Billington spoke before you about a large-scale
initiative that the Library of Congress had called the,
National Digital Initiative for the 21st Century, which was
very broad in the scope. I only want to bring your attention to
the program known as the National Digital Library, which exists
now at the Library of Congress with about 75 professionals and
about 10 clerical administrative employees. These are
digitalization specialists who help work on historic
collections at the Library that are mounted on the World Wide
Web via the Internet. They are in a career ladder, the folks we
represent, from about 9 to 12, and they are in term
appointments; means that they are not to exceed appointments,
which many of which are due up at the end of this fiscal year.
Now, the Library has asked that these term appointments be
made into permanent employees so, as they say in the lingo,
that we change them from NTE, not to exceed, to FTE, which is
full-time equivalents. The reason why I would like to urge this
committee to support that is because these employees work in a
structure that is very, very flat in the sense that there are
very few managers involved in this outset. They work on teams
throughout the Library and are assigned to work on historic
collections in various parts of the Library. They are very
programmatic, the National Digital Library is, and is very
thematic.
What do I mean by thematic? Well, if you surf the Web and
go into LOC.gov and look under American history, you will see a
number of historical collections from the American Civil War
photographs, the Jackie Robinson story, songs of the South,
Hispanic culture, all displayed artistically and creatively on
that Web site. These are various theme projects that the
National Digital Library staff work on.
So they do a good job, and they provide a much needed
service for the American public, because what we find today is
that a lot of American citizens are just in love with their
country's history. They are going to more movies about American
history, they are going to more museums, and they are visiting
Web sites about American history and watching all the
miniseries on the television shows. It is a service that means
that a person can be in their home and not have to come to the
Library, as scholars do, to research and see what some of these
collections are like.
So I come here really this morning to ask you to support
this one program for the existing staff at the National Digital
Library and see if you could see it in your minds and hearts to
appropriate and make that permanent staff member.
Again there is about 70 or 75 professionals in that unit
and about 10 clerical staff, very few managers. It is a lean
organization, and it would be in the best service of the
country and the Library if you would fund it. And I thank you
very much.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you for your presentation.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Billington and I have last year approached
the subject about the need of retaining the talents that we
have, because it is a rare talent in digitalization because it
is a growing industry worldwide, and there is a lot of demand
for that type of talent. We don't want to lose that at the
Library of Congress. Because one of the ways that I think we
tried to secure it is to see that the Library's mission is
broadened in that area, both in digitizing our own works, which
we are approaching 5 million, soon, and I estimate you probably
have at least another 15 million to go of the works that are
there now, and that is just my estimation. It is certainly not
the Library or anyone else.
And then the work that we are doing, technology that we are
making available in other countries by expanding the Library's
resources by the agreements with those countries, that is
important; and of course, the pilot programs that we are doing
with the public school teachers and using part of that staff to
teach and assemble the curriculum that teachers might want as
they start using the resources of the Library. And so all of
that, I think, as well as a need for continued expansion or at
least expansion of the material, those employees for the
Library of Congress. And we appreciate your also bringing that
to our attention again today.
Mr. Schniderman. I appreciate your comment, sir, that this
is not a replacement for the book, but is expanding the
resources of the great institution that we work in and love.
Mr. Taylor. Absolutely. And it is a golden age, I think,
for the Library just because of people's interest in history
and being able to both see visually on a screen and read. And I
think associating the written word with pictures and artifacts
that the libraries have is certainly worthwhile.
We did do the Lenin State Library in December with the
agreement there. They have a wonderful amount of material that
we can hopefully digitize and share with the Russians. A lot of
it hasn't been available to the public in almost 100 years. So
I think you are going to find that the things that are going on
in that area are going to be very exciting for this coming
century.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank you
for your testimony. And you bring up some of your issues in
your written testimony; which you didn't highlight in your oral
testimony. And one is the issue that the gentleman before you
talked about in terms of the employees' ergonomic hazards. Do
you wish to expand on your--because in your written testimony
you are critical of the program.
Mr. Schniderman. Of the ergonomics program.
Mr. Pastor. Let me read it. ``This program has faltered
recently.'' That is criticism, I guess.
Mr. Schniderman. I will answer your question, sir, and it
is a good question because the Library of Congress is a very
high-tech workplace, probably one of the most technology-
intensive units in the legislative branch, probably in all of
government.
What I meant with that slight critique in my written
testimony was that to date, the Library's ergonomics program
has been mostly voluntary, and it has been running now for
about 6 or 7 years. And what happens is that people burn out.
So we are hopeful. What I said in that testimony was that
if management at the Library would give the program a higher
profile by giving it some staff support. It is a joint effort
between the Library and the unions, and it will work if we pull
together.
I think one thing that the committee could do would be to
look at the appropriation request for the Library for furniture
replacement and applaud its efforts to hire an industrial
hygienist, which it is doing this year, to meet some of these
problems. So that is good.
Mr. Pastor. Ed has just highlighted for me last year's
budget provided $600,000 for furniture replacement.
Mr. Schniderman. Yes, and we----
Mr. Pastor. Towards the ergonomic replacement program. I
guess this committee at least has recognized that there is a
need to ensure that the equipment meets the new technology
demands. But you seem to be highlighting that we need to do a
little bit more.
Mr. Schniderman. We applaud that appropriation because it
was a 5-year furniture replacement plan, and it is in the
works, and we thank you for it. We thank you for it.
Mr. Taylor. I hope it is going to be made in North
Carolina, because there is not an ergonomically incorrect bone
in any of our bodies down there.
Mr. Pastor. Well, it is either because of the milk you are
drinking on the Jack Daniels.
But I guess what I am getting at, is what would you suggest
to us to encourage that it has a higher profile? What else is
it?
Mr. Schniderman. I think continuing to fund the furniture
and furnishings program Mr. Lombard pointed out is critical for
the furniture replacement, and to applaud the Library for the
hiring of an industrial hygienist, which is what they plan to
do this year, I think would be helpful.
Mr. Pastor. You also discussed the succession program, You
mention that you have people who are close to retirement now,
and probably, in 5 years there are going to be a lot of people
who will be leaving with their technical skills. And a least
from reading this, it seems that the program may not be fully
in place.
Mr. Schniderman. That program has just started for Library
services. I am not even sure it has actually started. CRS came
out of the box first on that. So we don't have too many details
on it that we have been briefed on. But the concept that the
institution of the Library of Congress has older employees, at
least the statistics we have seen from the rest of the Federal
Government and some of these areas, for example, on the Chinese
cataloguers and Library services, practically the entire team
of Chinese cataloguers could be eligible to retire within a
given year, and you could wipe out all of those language skills
and experience. So it is critical.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
CAROLYN AHEARN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW
LIBRARIES AND THE LAW LIBRARIANS SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is Carolyn Ahearn, who is with
the American Association of Law Libraries. She is President of
the Law Librarians Society of Washington.
Ms. Ahearn. Thank you. I am director of the Library
Services at Wiley Rein & Fielding here in Washington, D.C. I am
very pleased to appear before the subcommittee on behalf the
American Association of Law Libraries, AALL, to support the
full fiscal year 2001 funding request of the Library of
Congress.
I had the honor of serving as president of AALL in 1991 and
1992, and I am the immediate past president of our local
chapter, the Law Librarians Society of Washington, D.C.
The mission of the Law Library of Congress is to provide
legal and legislative reference and collection services to
Congress, the judicial and executive branches of government and
to the American public. The Library's multilingual attorneys,
researchers and reference librarians serve more than 100,000
users each year. In addition, the Law Library serves a rapidly
increasing number of remote users with electronic legal and
legislative information through its various Web sites.
As a representative of AALL, I urge full support of fiscal
year 2001 funding request for the Law Library. The more
traditional services of the Law Library, collecting and making
print materials accessible and useful to Congress and the other
members of the user community, must be continued. Staffing is
critical to this work. The budget request includes slots for 16
new Full Time employees that we believe to be absolutely
essential in order for the Law Library to restore continued
acceptable levels of research and reference service to Members
of Congress and other government agencies and officials.
Over the past decade a decrease in the number of FTEs at
the Law Library has been accompanied concurrently by a
substantial growth in the collection and successful development
of newer technology projects. Very importantly the funding
request also provides for the Law Library's succession plan,
including the provision of professional training and experience
to new staff before the retirement of highly experienced legal
experts.
As has been noted, this is an issue that a lot of various
parts of LOC are facing, but it is particularly critical in the
Law Library where a number of the foreign law specialists are
facing retirement now, and they in many cases were trained in
the foreign countries where they do their research in now, and
to develop that level of expertise with people who may not have
had the training in the original countries does take a great
deal of support. And that is something that we think is
critical.
At the same time several other important initiatives also
require the support and attention outlined in the funding
request. I would like to highlight two particular areas:
Digital initiatives and rare legal materials.
Among the Law Library's most important newer initiatives
are the successful efforts to maximize use of state-of-the-art
technologies to make its collections more accessible. The Law
Library currently has been engaged in two separate digital
Library initiatives, the Global Legal Information Network,
known as GLIN, and a project undertaken with the National
Digital Library entitled A Century of Lawmaking for a New
Nation. GLIN is a multinational legal database with official
current law resources that is uniquely important to our
government in the rapidly changing global economy. This
received your support in the past and clearly merits continuing
support to expand the country coverage and augment the content
by digitizing retrospective and current specialized legal
materials.
The other important digitalization project, A Century of
Lawmaking for a New Nation, offers Congress and many others
unprecedented access to historical congressional debates of the
first 42 Federal Congresses. Upon completion of this project,
any researcher with access to the Internet may explore the
first 100 years of our Nation's history and evolving government
as documented by the official reports of Congress.
With your continued support for this unique project, the
Law Library will offer Congress, the Nation and the world
remote access to this Nation's second century of lawmaking.
While making appropriate use of technology, the past must
not be neglected. The Law Library currently has the largest
collection of rare law and legal-related materials available in
the world. Preservation of these materials is imperative. At
this time hundreds of rare legal materials are integrated into
the Law Library's general collections and are presently at
risk. Appropriate staffing and programs are needed to identify
and segregate these materials in a suitably secure facility and
to focus on special issues raised with these very unique
materials.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of
the almost 4,800 members of AALL, I thank you for your past
support of the Law Library of Congress, and I urge your current
support so that in fiscal year 2001, the Law Library can
continue to build its valuable collections and services as well
as its significantly important digital initiatives. Thank you
very much for your consideration.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
presentation.
[The information follows:]
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE DEPARTMENT
WITNESS
VERNON GEHRIS, CHAIRMAN, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
LABOR COMMITTEE
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is Vernon Gehris, chairman of
the Fraternal Office of Police of the Library of Congress Labor
Committee. I hope my pronunciation of your name was correct.
Mr. Gehris. It was correct, Congressman. Thank you. Usually
it isn't, but it was.
Chairman Taylor, Congressman Pastor, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you regarding the Library of
Congress Police Department. I am the chairman of the Fraternal
Order of Police Labor Committee, which represents the sworn
members of the Department below the rank of sergeant. I was a
D.C. Metropolitan Police officer for 24 years before retiring.
I joined the Library of Congress Police Department in April of
1998. I am proud to work with the men and women I represent.
They are dedicated and often must work very long hours under
difficult circumstances to secure the Library and its
approaches to the Capitol.
While morale suffers from the lack of sufficient manpower
and resources, I am pleased to report that my fellow officers
face these obstacles with determination and perseverance. They
continue to have a can-do attitude.
I will keep my remarks brief today, but I must bring
several significant issues before you. Training is critical to
law enforcement professionals throughout their careers. Many of
us receive initial training at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center in GlencoE, Georgia, FLETC. However, the
Library has recently adopted a policy of hiring experienced
officers from other agencies without requiring them to complete
the FLETC training. Some of our newest hires do not have prior
Federal law enforcement experience.
There is no formal continuing education program for our
members. We are provided a 10-minute presentation each day
which generally recites the Department's policies from
published orders. There is no Library of Congress Police
Academy. There are no experienced officers' seminars, there are
no FLETC-certified instructors in any law enforcement
discipline excepts firearms qualifications. Our members--and
here is a correction to my testimony--our members are certified
annually instead of semiannually with their service weapons.
Even though most of our members are fully trained and
certified in accordance with the FLETC standards, they do not
have the appropriate equipment to perform within those Federal
standards. Use of force is the most serious exercise of police
power. It presents an inherent risk to the officer and the
subject of his or her use of force. The continuum of use of
force is thoroughly presented, and students are tested several
times on its requirements while they are at FLETC.
Use of force is given a very high priority in the FLETC
curriculum. The use of force continuum requires the least
amount of force necessary to apprehend someone who is resisting
arrest. It provides an escalation of force in steps, which
assumes the Federal officer has the proper equipment and
training. For example, the FLETC policy requires the use of
chemical agents prior to the use of any physical force. Should
the chemical fail to subdue the resisting subject, the officer
may escalate the use of force. Of course, the use of firearms
is the last resort.
Library police officers are not issued any chemical agent
and are prohibited from having them at work. Yet other
employees and visitors may bring them in for self-protection.
The absence of a chemical agent means our officers may have to
resort to deadly force much more quickly.
We have no direct access to the law enforcement databases
routinely used by other Federal and local law enforcement
agencies to identify wanted persons as they are interviewing
them. Our control center must contact the U.S. Capitol Police
Department to have them to make inquiries. This delays the
return of information and can aggravate an already tense
situation.
When we arrest someone, we must call the U.S. Capitol
Police Department to provide transportation to the U.S. Capitol
holding facilities. We do not have any transport vehicles or
holding facility within our Department. This delays prisoner
transportation and exposes everyone involved to increased
risks.
While the Department is hiring more people, and we applaud
that action, our members must now work excessive amounts of
forced overtime, and some posts are not properly manned due to
the lack of adequate personnel. The union believes this
compromises the security of the Library, the Capitol Building
and all those who visit and work in them. We urge this
committee to continuously monitor manpower in our Department to
ensure that present positive trends continue.
In order to retain officers who are already on board and
those who are now being hired, we must conform our retirement
system to that presently enjoyed by the U.S. Capitol Police,
provided that the officers who are now employed by the Library
have the option of choosing between the existing system and
that offered to the U.S. Capitol Police.
The competition for qualified men and women grows sharper
each day. I am concerned that our Department will become a pool
for other law enforcement agencies to drain. The advantages
they enjoy in retirement, training, equipment and personnel
levels are strong inducements for our members to seek
employment elsewhere.
In closing, I must point out that all the issues I have
raised today could be addressed through a merger with the U.S.
Capitol Police Department. The union would encourage this move,
provided our members would be protected from any adverse
consequences. We must recognize and respect years of service
and contribution made by our members as we consider future
improvements. No man or woman must suffer as a result of future
developments.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
I will remain in regular contact with the subcommittee, and I
hope you will call on me without hesitation. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you for those remarks, and we would like
you to stay in touch with us.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. How many people do you arrest in a year? Do you
have any idea of the numbers?
Mr. Gehris. There is probably 12. That doesn't mean more
could not be arrested, and probably actually 12. The management
of our police department frowns on arrests, so if there is any
way to avoid arresting somebody, we do that.
Mr. Taylor. And you know, as Member of Congress we frown on
that, too; I mean, especially if we are there. Are these people
trying to take items, or just someone who is obnoxious?
Mr. Gehris. Well, for example, just approximately 6 months
ago we arrested a man delivering water who was armed with a
weapon, and he had a prior record.
Mr. Taylor. He was delivering water?
Mr. Gehris. Delivering water in the Madison Building and
unloading.
Mr. Taylor. For one of the coolers or that sort of thing?
Mr. Gehris. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. And he just happened to be carrying a gun.
Mr. Gehris. He was carrying a gun. It was in his waistband.
Mr. Taylor. Was his intent for the Library just carrying it
around? I mean, this is D.C. I served the Chairman on that
subject for 2 years.
Mr. Gehris. I guess he felt he needed to carry a gun all
the time.
Mr. Taylor. Well, and, of course, we appreciate the
Library's attention to the question of theft, all of the rare
documents and books that we have. And there has been a lot of
positive things happen in the last few years in that area, and
we think that is very important.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. I just want to ask the question on the issue of
chemical agents. We don't issue chemical agents to the Capitol
Police, do we?
Mr. Gehris. The Capitol police carry pepper spray.
Mr. Pastor. I know what you are talking about. I don't
think we issue that.
Mr. Gehris. I think the Capitol Police carry that.
Mr. Pastor. Oh, they do.
Mr. Taylor. Is that with our permission or without?
Mr. Pastor. I don't know. I am just curious, because I
think in most of the testimony it has never been a real issue.
And I am just curious if we----
Mr. Gehris. The Capitol police carry it.
Mr. Pastor. Well, you would hope that that would be enough
to subdue somebody and you wouldn't have to go on to a higher
level of force.
Mr. Gehris. I brought this question up to the management
doctor of police sciences.
Mr. Pastor. Who is he or she?
Mr. Gehris. Dr. Charles.
Mr. Pastor. Does Dr. Charles work at the Library?
Mr. Gehris. She is the doctor that heads the health
services unit for the Library and also police management. And
she told me, if I have this right, well, gee, if we used pepper
spray in the reading room, we would have to close down the
reading room until you got rid of the pepper spray. But what if
you shot somebody? The same thing would occur. So what is
better? And we do deal with a lot of people there, people that
are mentally deranged, at the Library where I think the pepper
spray would be more better than hitting somebody with a baton.
And that is a thought.
Mr. Pastor. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
----------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
ABBY SMITH, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION
RESOURCES
Mr. Taylor. The next witness is Abby Smith, Director of
Programs, Library of Congress.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Abby Smith.
I am the Director of Programs at the Council on Labor
Information Resources here representing our president Deanna
Marcum, who is working and out of the country and couldn't be
here herself. You have our written testimony, which I won't
read. I think it is self-explanatory. But I would like to add a
bit of perspective, why the Library's digital future initiative
is so important not only for the Library of Congress, but
really for all the libraries in the United States and also
libraries abroad.
There has been a lot of press this year about how this
technology has revolutionized commerce and the entertainment
business and our daily lives. But for years now, this
technology has deeply affected libraries and archives. I think
if there is one sector of our civil society that has truly been
revolutionized by this technology, it is libraries, and the
technology has been both a boon, and it has been very
destabilizing for a world which prizes stability and authority
of control.
The difficulties that libraries are facing are in part the
dilemma of preserving bits and bytes. Paper, even acid paper,
looks extremely stable now as we look ahead to the future,
because, as you know, there is no certain way of preserving
digital information. It is both unstable in its format, and
also because it can only be read on a machine, you have to have
the right hardware and software in order to get access to it.
So even if we had sturdy CD ROMs 50 years from now, they
could turn out to be like the Rosetta Stone, which is there
uncorrupted but ineligible because we don't have the hardware
and software.
Another problem is there is so much more information being
created now than there was when you had to put things in print.
In fact, everybody can be a self-publisher now. And it is all
published on this bulletin board known as the Web. The Library
of Congress's Web site exists with a lot of amateur Web sites,
and it is difficult for librarians as well as the average
person to navigate this information to determine what is
important and how they get it to their patrons in a serviceable
way.
So libraries know that they will, rather than be put out of
business by this technology, in fact become increasingly
important, but they face a number of challenges in doing that.
And as has always been the case, libraries really look to the
Library of Congress for leadership in this area, and they do so
because in part the Library took an early and significant lead
in digitizing its retrospective collections.
The National Digital Library is a model for all libraries
in the States and also abroad. I don't think any of us can go
abroad without hearing how wonderful the Library of Congress is
and how much they take it as a model.
The Library's request for their investment in the digital
future initiative is, we think, very appropriate and a very
conservative and measured way to move ahead in a very uncertain
world. Of course, there is money that is requested for
technology that I think people understand, they expect to
invest a lot in hardware and software. Wiser, I think, is the
Library's request for an investment in the staff who are
willing, who are able to keep up with this technology and
deliver services.
I think people really underestimate how dependent upon
people technology is. Technology doesn't create itself, and
because there is so much hardware and software being created
now, it takes highly skilled people to determine how to upgrade
and how to keep systems fresh.
You have made an investment in this staff which has been
strained for several years. We support the Library's request to
make that staff firm from NTE to FTE.
Finally, I would like to say that the Library is engaging
in a number of pilot projects with publishers and others who
themselves are trying to figure out how to preserve journals
and other publications electronically. There the issue is one
of trust. I think even the greatest publisher knows it needs to
be doing something about making its e-journals permanent, but
to them it is a very risky business to trust any library to do
that. They are willing to trust the Library of Congress to do a
number of pilots to ensure that their information is
copyrighted and protected and not abused. And I think there are
few institutions in the States who are in the same position as
the Library of Congress to undertake the kinds of pilot
projects which they request. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much for your comments.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. And we have stated the committee's position has
been to be very supportive in the digitalization process. And,
of course, one of the most supportive things I think we can do
is enlarge the task so that we will be able to keep talented
people, but not only keep them, but keep them constructively,
because it is in that way that the Congress and the Nation sees
the benefit. So we are moving in a variety of ways to do that.
Certainly Dr. Billington has been well-respected worldwide
for the leadership in the Library and certainly now in the
digital library process. So we appreciate your coming to
reenforce that today.
Mr. Pastor, do you have any questions?
Mr. Pastor. No, I don't, but I want to thank you for your
testimony. It is very informative.
Mr. Taylor. We would like you to keep us apprised. And I
can't speak for the members of the committee because they are
much more knowledgeable, I am sure, than I, but my three sons
know more about the process than I do. I am learning. But if
anything you find that is changing, if you want to supply it to
this committee or myself and the Members, we would be happy to
see it.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. We would be delighted.
----------
Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
JANET S. ZAGORIN, CHAIR, ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
BILL ORTON, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Taylor. We now have Janet Zagorin, the American Bar
Association, Law Library of Congress.
Ms. Zagorin. Good morning. I have been here for I think
this is my sixth year, and I listened this morning to all the
witnesses, and I think the Congressmen probably can recite my
testimony for me. I am very impressed this morning.
I do want to apologize for Bill Orton who is--as you know,
Mr. Congressman, he is trying to get here. He is a member of
our the committee, the ABA, and this is a very important
hearing for him, but he--I would like to ask that he could
submit something after.
Mr. Taylor. Certainly. Without objection.
Ms. Zagorin. I want to thank you on behalf of the ABA. As
you know, this is the standing committee that the ABA has had
for more than several years. And the reason that we have this
committee to support the Law Library is because we believe that
the Law Library is such an integral part of the American
culture, and probably becoming even more so. And we want to do
everything we can to support your efforts.
You have been very generous, this committee has been very
generous, in the past couple years in helping us assist the Law
Library in addressing some of their serious budget crises. And
you have my testimony, so I really just wanted to make a couple
really important points that those of us at the American Bar
Association think are fairly apparent, but, unfortunately, also
desperate.
Many of our speakers this morning have already talked
about, you know, technology and the need to keep the Law
Library and the Library of Congress in the forefront in the
American public, but we really believe that you have in the
past few years helped achieve a couple important opportunities
on behalf of the Congress. It is your Library, first and
foremost; it is your law library, and critical to all the
research and all the bill-making and the research that goes on
on the foreign, agriculture, comparative law as well as
domestic. We think this makes quite a statement.
In 2 months and 2 days, the Library will be 200 years old,
and, you know, if you look around the world today, we see
countries who are trying to close down access to the Internet,
close down access to information, because they find it
threatening. And we think that the testament that Congress
makes to the world, the declaration that, Congress, you have
made to the world to say this is our Law Library, these are our
laws and regulations, our case law, and not only is it
available to all of our citizens, to all of our schoolchildren,
but it is available to any citizen of the world, we are saying
in a way that is nonpartisan, in a way that is just simple
democracy. This is the model for what we think a democracy is
about. Here are our statutes. Here is how we conduct our
business. We have no fear that our citizens or citizens in
China or citizens in Venezuela will see our statutes. In fact,
we reach out to you.
And you have heard the testimony this morning about the
number of law specialists. The ABA is terribly concerned that
in order to keep up what is the largest law library in the
world, the leanest staff in the world, the amount of research,
the amount of reference, the amount of knowledge that is
handled really and truly by a very few number of people.
We are concerned as you asked about the succession, Mr.
Chairman. In the year 2004, we believe 64 percent--or 54
percent of their staff or the foreign law specialists may
retire. We can't move forward if we have this kind of crisis.
We have a million pages in the Law Library. As you rely on
the Law Library, both the beauty of common law and our system
is that we have our precedents, and we have access to the most
current version of the proposed statute. If we have a million
pages--and, yes, technology takes care of some of that, but it
certainly can't fix that which is necessary for you, having
access to the proper material.
So we think that the Law Library has made quite a realistic
proposal. We think this is the year that we are trying to catch
up. With all the generosity that you have bestowed on the
appropriations in the past couple years, we have only got to
catch up to where they were before. They don't even have a
Webmaster there. And yet there, as you have heard already--and
you know that Web is really influential around the world in
making the Law Library quite--I think it is quite a force of
American democracy.
We would ask very much that you continue to support what
they have asked for. We are willing to work with you as the ABA
in any way we possibly can to support it. Law 2000 is quite a
project this year. And we think it really is the focus of the
world on what is going on in American law and also in foreign
law, as the Law Library of Congress has chosen to express it
through its relationships with the world. So I thank you very
much.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you for your presentation.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. Pastor. You agreed with me that the leadership of the
Chairman and this subcommittee has tried and has been very
active to help in the succession programs.
Ms. Zagorin. Yes.
Mr. Pastor. And we are very aware of the problems and
concerned like you are. We were told today that the Law
Library, the people that are involved in the Chinese, they are
ready to retire, so we are losing the technical skills that
will be very difficult to replace, and I know that the Chairman
is very aware of it. And this committee wants to help, but
sometimes policies that are way beyond our pay grade take hold,
and some of the things we are trying to do, if not corrected,
they are reduced. So it is not because we are not trying.
Ms. Zagorin. We do recognize that. And we really do
appreciate----
Mr. Pastor. So you may be able to help out at higher
levels.
Ms. Zagorin. That is one of the reasons the ABA is so
involved. We would like to have that constituency take some
ownership and responsibility so that is not all on your plate,
because it certainly is a constituency that should have a role
in this. And you have done something very--as I said in the
last couple years, we are very grateful for what you have done.
Unfortunately, we know that the interesting thing is it only
takes a little bit to help us.
Mr. Pastor. A small percentage of reduction, therefore
causing a hardship.
Mr. Taylor. We are glad to have Congressman Orton who is
with us today and a colleague of years past.
Ms. Zagorin has made an excellent presentation. We were
making some comments and asking the questions. Do you have
anything you would like to add?
Mr. Orton. First let me apologize for my tardiness. I was
unaware that the hearing had been scheduled this morning. I had
a conflict, and I hurried over as quickly as I could. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.
I will not take much of your time or repeat what Janet has
already told you. And the written testimony which she has
submitted I think very accurately outlines the initiatives and
concerns.
Let me just add to it personally, since leaving Congress I
have--in fact, immediately after leaving, the ABA contacted me
and asked if I could serve on the standing committee supporting
the Law Library of Congress, which I happily have done. And
each year we have been here outlining to you their concerns and
needs.
I would just like to say that having served on the Budget
Committee, I know the very difficult choices that are made. I
know the limits and the restrictions that are placed upon you
as appropriators and what you can do. But also I just would
like to say that during times of surplus, which we are in, and
with each month of extended economic growth, the surplus grows,
this is the time that we need to really make up for the cuts
that the Law Library incurred. They have irreplaceable
treasures in that Law Library, and no rare book library can
take care of them. They have millions of pages of updates that
if they are not put in on time, you can't rely on the accuracy
of the data that you are getting from your own law library.
They have taken the cuts, but every year there have been
cuts, but they have not been restored back to where they were
previously. So they really need your support.
I would urge you strongly if there is any way to fully fund
the positions that they need in order to just get them back up
to strength where they were before the cuts in 1994, it would
be immensely helpful to them.
So anyway, again, I appreciate the time. Just a personal
plea to do everything that you possibly can to help restore
them. It is a treasure that we cannot afford to lose, and they
have so many more volumes than any other library. They are
doing so much more with so much less, they deserve a Medal of
Honor for what they have been able to do. But I don't know how
much longer they can continue doing it with the budget they
have.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I think Mr. Pastor and I are
certainly of one mind in the area of transition. The necessity,
as he was saying, it is not frugality if you let that type of
talent leave or if you are not prepared to replace or at least
have a transition for the memory that is going to be lost if
you have such a loss. It is not just in the Law Library, but in
all parts of the Library of Congress, the CRS. So we certainly
are going to work with Dr. Billington and the like leadership
and try to do as much as we can in that area.
Ms. Zagorin. We will appreciate that and do whatever we can
to help support those activities and appreciate that, because
we really do understand how hard it is, but we also understand
it is critical to our Nation.
Mr. Orton. If there is any other information you need or
any support data or anything, let us know.
Mr. Taylor. The fiscal year 2001 legislative branch
appropriations hearing stands adjourned subject to the call of
the Chair.
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Abrecht, G.L..................................................... 511
Ahearn, Carolyn.................................................. 659
Anderson, B.B.................................................... 581
Archer, Bill..................................................... 313
Barrow, Pope..................................................... 1
Billington, J.H.................................................. 119
Brown, R.L.....................................................483, 601
Buckley, F.J., Jr................................................ 275
Campbell, Laura.................................................. 119
Cook, C.C........................................................ 275
Crippen, D.L..................................................... 581
Cylke, F.K....................................................... 119
DiMario, M.F..................................................... 275
Dodaro, G.L...................................................... 483
Dunlap, Ken...................................................... 647
Eagen, Jay....................................................... 1
Eisold, Dr. J.F.................................................. 1
Follin, Russ..................................................... 601
Franklin, Herb................................................... 355
Frenze, Christopher.............................................. 267
Frey, Bob........................................................ 1
Gainer, W.J...................................................... 581
Gehris, Vernon................................................... 667
Gennett, Geraldine............................................... 1
Green, Gary...................................................... 547
Guy, Bill........................................................ 275
Hale, Janet...................................................... 601
Hantman, A.M...................................................355, 511
Hodges, P.E....................................................581, 601
Hughes-Brown, Beth.............................................547, 601
Jenkins, J.C..................................................... 119
Kessler, R.R., Jr................................................ 623
Korsee, Sharon................................................... 647
Lamkin, Gen. F.M................................................. 119
Livingood, W.S...................................................1, 511
Lopez, K.E....................................................... 119
Mansker, R.T..................................................... 275
Marcum, Dr. Deanna............................................... 677
Medina, Rubens................................................... 119
Miley, Robert.................................................... 355
Miller, John..................................................... 1
Mulhollan, D.P................................................... 119
Orton, Bill...................................................... 680
Paull, Lindy..................................................... 313
Peters, Marybeth................................................. 119
Poole, Amita..................................................... 355
Pregnall, Stuart...............................................355, 601
Roth, Dennis..................................................... 633
Saxton, Hon. Jim................................................. 267
Schniderman, Saul................................................ 647
Scott, D.L....................................................... 119
Silberman, Ricky................................................. 547
Smith, Abby...................................................... 675
Smith, Teresa.................................................... 119
Stephens, James.................................................. 547
Tabb, Winston.................................................... 119
Talkin, Pamela................................................... 547
Theiss, Lynne.................................................... 355
Trandahl, Jeff................................................... 1
Turnbull, M.G.................................................... 355
Walker, D.M...................................................... 483
Wallace, B.C..................................................... 547
Wand, Patricia................................................... 613
Washington, Linda................................................ 119
Webster, J.D...................................................119, 601
Williams, K.A.................................................... 119
Zagorin, J.S..................................................... 680
Ziglar, J.W...................................................... 511
I N D E X
----------
Page
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 355
Accountability Act........................................... 459
Additional Positions......................................... 440
Botanic Garden............................................... 439
Cannon Garage................................................ 443
Capital Budget............................................... 442
Capitol Power Plant.......................................... 449
Capitol Power Plant Expansion................................ 450
Closing Remarks.............................................. 463
Dome Rehabilitation.......................................... 444
Dome Rehabilitation Cost..................................... 444
Emergency Exits.............................................. 456
Emergency Exit Door Instructions............................. 458
Fire Drills.................................................. 458
Fire Safety.................................................. 451
Fire Safety Alternatives..................................... 462
Fire Safety Compliance....................................... 459
Fire Safety Compliance Completion Date....................... 462
Fire System Testing.......................................... 453
Hazardous Duty Pay........................................... 441
Office of Compliance Report.................................. 457
Opening Remarks.............................................. 355
Opening Statement............................................ 369
Rayburn Building Fire System................................. 454
Rayburn Cafeteria............................................ 449
Reprogrammings............................................... 463
Subcommittee Service......................................... 368
U.S. Capitol Police Projects................................. 446
U.S. Capitol Police Vehicle Maintenance...................... 447
Visitor Center............................................... 356
Visitor Center Cost Estimates................................ 357
Visitor Center Design........................................ 356
Visitor Center Design Development............................ 366
Visitor Center Fund Raising.................................. 439
Visitor Center Time Line..................................... 367
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 581
CBO's Appropriation Request for Fiscal Year 2001............. 581
Cost of Consultants.......................................... 598
Fiscal Year 1999 Reprogramming Requests...................... 593
Increase for ADP Spending.................................... 593
January Pay Raise............................................ 597
Need for Additional Funds in Fiscal Year 2001................ 582
Price Increases for Subscriptions............................ 593
Reduced Appropriation in Fiscal Year 2000.................... 582
Revenue Estimates............................................ 599
General Accounting Office........................................ 483
Agency Self-Assessment....................................... 506
Contracting.................................................. 504
FTE Requirements............................................. 507
GAO Network.................................................. 503
Legislative Proposals........................................ 505
Mandatory Changes............................................ 503
Opening Remarks.............................................. 483
Renovation of GAO Building................................... 504
Training Budget.............................................. 503
Government Printing Office....................................... 275
Air conditioning...........................................286, 296
Awards....................................................... 297
Book sellers................................................. 302
Congressional Record......................................... 283
Electronic formats.........................................285, 304
FTE's........................................................ 286
Pricing publications......................................... 300
Printing procurement......................................... 291
Procurement prices........................................... 303
Public Access................................................ 305
Public Printer's prepared statement.......................... 275
Revolving fund............................................... 291
Systems Security............................................. 301
U.S. Code.................................................... 300
Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 313
Statement of Congressman Archer............................314, 352
Study on the State of the Federal Tax System................. 352
Joint Economic Committee......................................... 267
Budget Request and Committee Research........................ 268
Statement of Vice Chairman Jim Saxton........................ 269
Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council.................... 601
A Shared Financial Management System......................... 610
Improved Payroll Administration.............................. 611
Library of Congress.............................................. 119
America's Story.............................................. 197
American Memory Collection................................... 197
Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped............... 212
Collections Security Plan.................................... 204
Congressional Research Service, Director's statement......... 214
Copyright Office............................................. 232
Culpeper Audio-Visual Conservation Center.................... 203
Digital Futures Initiative................................... 120
Fort Meade Storage Facility.................................. 202
National and International Collaborations.................... 201
National On-Line Library...................................198, 149
Recruitment Efforts.......................................... 209
Transit Subsidy.............................................. 212
West Point Collaboration..................................... 198
Office of Compliance............................................. 547
Accomplishments of the Agency................................ 561
Architect's Record of Compliance............................. 562
Cost of Remediation.......................................... 563
Increase in Other Services................................... 565
Questions for the Record from Representative Hoyer........... 567
Statement of Executive Director.............................. 549
Summary of Findings.......................................... 562
Unresolved Safety and Health Issues.......................... 568
Testimony of Interested Individuals and Organizations............ 613
U.S. Capitol Police.............................................. 511
Body Armor and Weapons....................................... 525
Capitol Building Access...................................... 528
Crime Statistics............................................. 543
Families of Deceased Officers................................ 540
Firearm Training............................................. 526
General Expenses Budget...................................... 534
Information Technology....................................... 531
Library of Congress.......................................... 532
Management Review............................................ 532
Name Tags.................................................... 527
New Positions................................................ 522
Perimeter Security........................................... 529
Replacement Process for Chief of Police...................... 530
Salaries Budget.............................................. 533
Security Enhancements........................................ 523
Visitors Center.............................................. 530
U.S. House of Representatives.................................... 1
Allowances and Expenses...................................... 73
Attending Physician.......................................... 80
General Discussion on Attending Physician Office......... 93
Chaplain, Office of the...................................... 62
Chief Administrative Officer................................. 41
CAO budget increase explained............................ 42
CAO budget request compared to prior budgets............. 48
Congressman Ehlers task force discussion................. 90
Discussion on synergistic management..................... 117
Opening statement........................................ 2
Statement of the CAO..................................... 3
Clerk, Office of the.........................................90, 25
Clerk budget increase explained.......................... 90
Page dorm relocation discussion.......................... 90
Document management system............................... 114
Further discussion on document management system......... 90
Committee on Appropriations.................................. 23
Corrections Calendar Office.................................. 71
Distribution of information.................................. 115
FY 1999 House Transfers...................................... 94
FY 2000 pay adjustments...................................... 83
General Counsel, Office of................................... 61
House Leadership Offices..................................... 7
Improved House management.................................... 115
Inspector General, Office of................................. 49
Statement of the Inspector General....................... 50
January 2000 COLA decision................................... 116
Law Revision Counsel, Office of.............................. 64
Statement of the Law Revision Counsel.................... 65
Legislative Counsel, Office of............................... 67
Statement of the Legislative Counsel..................... 68
Members' Representatives Allowance........................... 21
Other Authorized Employees................................... 72
Parliamentation, Office of the............................... 63
Salaries, Officers and Employees............................. 24
Sergeant at Arms, Office of.................................. 38
Sergeant At Arms budget request.......................... 92
Standing Committees, Special and Select...................... 22