    [Senate Hearing 106-820]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 106-820

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                       H.R. 4516, 4577, and 5657/S. 2603

           AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR
             THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR OTHER
             PURPOSES

                                   __________

                 Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
                          Congressional Budget Office
                           General Accounting Office
                           Government Printing Office
                          Joint Committee on Taxation
                            Joint Economic Committee
                              Library of Congress
                              Office of Compliance
                           U.S. Capitol Police Board
                                  U.S. Senate

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

        deg.Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
                                congress/senate

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    62-802                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                                     ______

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JON KYL, Arizona
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                   James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

                       ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                               Christine Ciccone
                          James H. English (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, February 8, 2000

                                                                       Page
    Joint Economic Committee.........................................     1
    Congressional Budget Office......................................     9

                           Tuesday, February 22, 2000

    U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................    25
    Library of Congress..............................................    51
    Joint Committee on Taxation......................................   133
    Government Printing Office.......................................   153

                           Tuesday, February 29, 2000

    Architect of the Capitol.........................................   167
    General Accounting Office........................................   225
    Office of Compliance.............................................   243

                            Tuesday, March 21, 2000

    U.S. Senate:
        Office of the Secretary of the Senate........................   255
        Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper................   323

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:36 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

    STATEMENT OF JIM SAXTON, VICE CHAIRMAN

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. The hearing will come to order. This is
    the first in a series of four hearings that the subcommittee
    will hold on fiscal year 2001 budget requests. We are doing our
    best to comply with the desire of the leadership here in the
    Senate, both the committee leadership in the form of Senator
    Stevens and the Senate leadership in the form of Senator Lott,
    to see to it that we get the appropriations process done as
    rapidly as possible this year, and more rapidly than we have
    done in the years gone past.
        So our next hearings will be February 22 and February 29.
    And our final hearing, we hope, will be on the 7th of March.
        And today we will hear testimony from two agency budgets,
    the Joint Economic Committee and the Congressional Budget
    Office. And our first witness, whom we welcome very warmly,
    Congressman Jim Saxton, who is the vice chairman of the Joint
    Economic Committee and, all going well, the chairman during the
    time this particular budget will be in place.
        So I am a member of that committee and appreciated working
    with Mr. Saxton. He has been chairman of that committee and now
    is the vice chairman.
        From that perspective, Mr. Saxton, I look forward to your
    testimony. We understand you have requested $3,315,000, which
    is a 3.6-percent increase over last year. That is to cover
    staff COLAs. And before we hear from you, I want to extend
    formal congratulations to the JEC on being designated one of
    the top three House websites by the nonpartisan congressional
    management fund. I pay attention to things like that. I wish I
    could get my website up to that standard. But we will be having
    conversations with my staff.
        Thank you for coming, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Saxton. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    holding this hearing this morning. Let me return the kudos to
    you, because I remember, about 1 year ago having been here and
    having you raising the issue of Y2K well in advance of the turn
    of the century. Subsequent to that, you became the chairman of
    a special committee or task force to take care of Y2K. And the
    first year went by without a glitch. So congratulations on a
    job well done.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. Let me just interject. It went
    by without some reported glitches. We now know there was a
    fairly widespread number of problems around the world, which
    other governments, for their own reasons, decided not to tell
    anybody about, because they did not want to be embarrassed.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have a written
    statement which I would like to ask be included in the record.
        Senator Bennett. Without objection, it will be included.

             FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE RESEARCH

        Mr. Saxton. And I have with me today our chief economist,
    Chris Frenze. He is actually the chief economist to the vice
    chairman.
        And also, Howard Rosen is with us from the minority staff.
    We are pleased to be here to speak as a bipartisan team.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a
    pleasure to be here once again to express my strong support for
    the fiscal year 2001 budget request of the Joint Economic
    Committee, as set forth, of course, by this year's chairman,
    Senator Mack.
        As you know, the JEC is essentially Congress' own in-house
    think tank. We examine 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 as
    you mentioned, our website has been given a top rating by the
    Congressional Management Foundation.
        Committee research covers a broad array of fiscal, monetary
    and international economic issues. One case in point that I
    might like to mention is the research and analysis that we have
    done on Federal Reserve policy over the last several years.
    This policy has focused on keeping inflation in check, and
    subsequently has resulted in relatively low interest rates. And
    so we have been pleased to be able to do research and pass
    along that information to Members of the House and the Senate
    and the public who are interested.
        We also have spent a fair amount of time in examining the
    International Monetary Fund, how it operates, the cloak of
    secrecy that the IMF seems to keep itself shrouded in, and
    issues that have to do with the effects of IMF policy around
    the world. Mr. Frenze and I were part of a codel last year that
    went to Russia to examine in some detail the IMF policies and
    their effect or lack of effect on the Russian economy, and have
    subsequently made some recommendations about how IMF policy in
    our opinion ought to be changed.
        Most recently, we have spent the last couple of days
    reviewing oil prices in the northeast, and the resulting
    economic problems. As I was saying to you before the hearing
    started, Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago, the price of home
    heating oil was in the neighborhood of 80 cents. Today it is
    around $2. And the reasons for that are not clear at this
    point.
        As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we have requested a
    3.6-percent increase. And I might just say, by way of history
    on the budgetary sides of the JEC, in the early 1990s, in fact
    in 1992, our budget then was just over $4 million. By 1995,
    because of cost saving efforts, our budget was shrunk to about
    $2.75 million. And so we are in the year 2000 just over $3
    million and have requested no increase except for a cost-of-
    living adjustment for our staff.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So with that, Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions, I
    will be more than happy to try to respond.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a
    pleasure once again to express my strong support for the fiscal
    year 2001 budget request of 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 has been rated one of the top three committee websites
    on Capitol Hill by the nonpartisan Congressional Management
    Foundation. Committee research covers a broad array of fiscal,
    monetary, and international economic issues.
        A case in point is our intensive examination of Federal
    Reserve monetary policy over the last three years. Through
    hearings with Chairman Greenspan, and a series of research
    papers, the Committee analyzed the specific content of the most
    successful monetary policy in U.S. history. Our research
    concluded that Federal Reserve policy in recent years has
    essentially been one of informal inflation targeting. In our
    hearings Chairman Greenspan has agreed that informal inflation
    targeting is the essence of his Federal Reserve policy.
        Since this monetary policy has proved so effective and
    beneficial to our economy, it is important to provide Congress
    with an explanation of inflation targeting and how it works. I
    also believe it would be beneficial to set more formal
    inflation targets and institutionalize this procedure so it is
    not dependent upon individual personalities.
        Inflation targets are ranges setting permissible changes in
    some broad price index. For example, one might choose to set a
    formal inflation target of 0 to 2 percent. Monetary policy is
    then geared to achieve this inflation target over the
    designated time frame. As documented in JEC research papers,
    many other nations have adopted inflation targeting, and the
    results have been very positive. Our research has also
    explained how inflation targets can be achieved through use of
    forward-looking price indicators that reflect signs of
    potential future inflation.
        Another focus of the JEC has been the two-year research
    program on the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF plays
    an important role in international economics and finance, but
    its own financial operations and policy actions had not been
    transparently presented to policymakers and the public. The JEC
    review of IMF operations raised a number of important questions
    about the IMF that could not be answered by public documents.
    Thus we began to raise the issue of the lack of IMF
    transparency.
        Our research had permitted us to draw a number of
    conclusions about IMF operations, but many of these could not
    be confirmed through publicly available information. The
    Committee's research repeatedly was hampered by a lack of IMF
    transparency that veiled detailed financial information. With
    the assistance of the General Accounting Office, the JEC was
    able to gain access to this information and make it readily
    available through public hearings. We now know that the U.S.
    provides over one quarter of the IMF's usable funds, that the
    G-10 account for 77 percent of these funds, and that most IMF
    members provide little if any of these funds. We have also
    found that the IMF interest subsidies are even greater than was
    first thought.
        Our research has found that the IMF has gone far afield in
    making loans for a wide variety of development and structural
    purposes unrelated to the appropriate functions of the IMF.
    These loans are made to borrowers at extremely low interest
    rates considering the tasks involved. For example, the IMF is
    lending to Russia and Indonesia at interest rates below the
    cost of credit to the U.S. government. This doesn't make any
    economic or financial sense. By the way, these Russian and
    Indonesian loans account for one third of the credit extended
    by the IMF.
        Several policy implications follow from our research as
    well as the recent research of others. The IMF should focus on
    crisis lending only, it should discontinue longer-term
    development lending, and the pervasive interest rate subsidies
    should be discontinued. In other words, the IMF should make
    only short-term loans in economic emergencies at market
    interest rates. This was the idea behind legislation offered in
    1998 that would have mandated use of market interest rates by
    the IMF. Although its application was narrowed to apply only to
    some IMF loans, a version of this legislation has become law.
    Further reforms related to the IMF became law in 1999.
    Moreover, last month Secretary Summers made an important speech
    in which he argued that the IMF interest rates were too low,
    and that the IMF should focus on emergency lending.
        It is my hope that the emerging consensus on IMF reform
    will lead to a broadening of the 1998 legislation curbing IMF
    interest subsidies. This 1998 legislation, based on JEC
    research, has not been fully implemented by the IMF, in my
    opinion. However, even a partial implementation of reforms
    leading to reform of IMF interest rates will save billions of
    taxpayer dollars over time. If the applicability of this
    legislation were broadened through future reform efforts,
    whether through legislation or consensus within the IMF,
    further savings would be achieved.
        One reason I mention this point is to highlight the
    tangible results possible from research in very abstract and
    difficult areas. Progress has been achieved in improving the
    way the IMF has operated, and more reform appears likely.
    Although the amount of the resulting savings is hard to
    precisely determine, they would be sufficient to cover the cost
    of JEC appropriations many times over.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
    morning.

        Senator Bennett. We have been joined by Senator Feinstein.
    And let me formally, on this first hearing of the year, welcome
    Senator Feinstein and say how delighted I am that she is the
    ranking member on this subcommittee. She has been wonderful to
    work with in the past year. And I am sure we will have the same
    kind of relationship this year.
        Senator, we would be happy to have any statement you would
    like to make.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been very pleased to be able to work with you. I have
    found you just a pleasure to work with and very diligent and a
    great chairman of this subcommittee.
        If I may, I would like to put my statement in the record.
        Senator Bennett. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I very much look forward to working again this year with
    Chairman Bennett in developing the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations bill for the Legislative Branch.
        I am pleased to join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming our
    colleague from the House, Congressman Jim Saxton, who will be
    presenting testimony during the first portion of this morning's
    hearing as Vice Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. And,
    following that, I also look forward to hearing from our CBO
    Director, Mr. Crippen.
        Mr. Chairman, since this is our first subcommittee hearing
    on the Senate side, I would ask that I be allowed this morning
    just a few extra moments for my personal comments before we get
    underway.
        I would like to say that it has been such a pleasure to
    serve with you, Mr. Chairman, on the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Subcommittee, and I very much look forward to
    continuing our work this year to craft a funding bill for
    fiscal year 2001: which sufficiently addresses the needs and
    concerns of this branch of government which is responsible for
    writing the laws of our land, which endeavors to preserve some
    of the historic treasures associated with the Congress and our
    Nation's Capitol, as well as the Library of Congress; and which
    provides realistic funding for the various support offices of
    the Congress, upon whom we depend so much for our research and
    statistical data, investigative reports, and comprehensive
    budget analyses that help us as legislators to make the best
    choices for our citizens; as well as those whom we rely upon
    for our printing requirements, documents control, facilities
    management and security.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me these few extra
    moments to extend my comments. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony of our two panelists this morning.

        Senator Feinstein. And, I do have a question of the
    Congressman. Is this the appropriate time?
        Senator Bennett. Surely. Go ahead.
        Senator Feinstein. Good morning.
        Mr. Saxton. Hi.
        Senator Feinstein. Why is this effort even necessary? I
    mean, why is it not redundant or duplicative of things that are
    already, or could be done, say, by CRS?
        Mr. Saxton. The fact of the matter is that the Joint
    Economic Committee is Congress' own think tank, as I indicated
    early in my testimony. We have the luxury, if you will, of
    concentrating on issues that can be dealt with in a fashion
    that permits us to do in-depth research. For example, there has
    been a lot of discussion among Members of Congress about the
    IMF. And I would like to say that much of the basis of that
    discussion was research that was done by the Joint Economic
    Committee.
        When we started to research the International Monetary Fund
    2\1/2\ or 3 years ago, very few people in Congress knew how the
    IMF operated. I remember the President not too long ago giving
    one of his Saturday speeches or addresses to the country about
    the IMF. And he started out by saying, ``I'd like to talk to
    you about the IMF, and it's not a bowling machine.''
        We have been able to shed a great deal of light on the IMF.
    The understanding that exists today in both Houses of Congress
    to a large extent is a result of JEC studies and reports on the
    IMF: how it operates, its policies, and its effect, or lack
    thereof, positive or negative, on many economies around the
    world.
        The same is true in understanding Fed monetary policy. When
    we began to look at fed monetary policy, we found that
    inflation was used as a target, and the control of inflation
    did a great deal to stabilize our economy and help it grow.
        And we have issued a number of reports on inflation
    targeting and other monetary issues. Not unlike the IMF, the
    institutional knowledge that exists today in the Congress on
    inflation targeting came to some extent, I would like to think
    to a large extent, from the Joint Economic Committee.
        And those, among other issues, are things that I think we
    have done that are very important.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me just say something with great
    respect. I have never received a report. I have been here 7
    years. I did not even know the committee did this report before
    today. And, if it does great things, it sure keeps it to
    itself.
        I mean, I will be very candid with you. I do not know why
    we need a Joint Economic Committee. If I want to learn about
    the IMF, it would not occur to me to go here. I mean, there are
    think tanks all over Washington. Why do we need our own think
    tank?
        Mr. Saxton. Well, let me say that we will be more than
    happy to share the reports that have been done. On the House
    side, we do send them out to each Member of Congress on a
    periodic basis.
        Senator Feinstein. Do we on the Senate side? Are they sent
    out, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Bennett. I am not aware of how that is done, and I
    am a member of the Joint Economic Committee. So I had better
    find out.
        Mr. Saxton. I am just reminded that the Congressional
    Management Foundation has cited our website, the Joint Economic
    Committee website, as one of the three best committee websites
    on Capitol Hill. This is another way that we have chosen to
    disseminate the information and make it available.
        Senator Feinstein. But, have there been reports sent out on
    the Senate side?
        Mr. Saxton. I would have to defer to Senator Mack, who is
    the full committee chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

                             Letter From Jim Saxton
                         Congress of the United States,
                                      Joint Economic Committee,
                                         Washington, DC, March 7, 2000.
    Chairman Robert F. Bennett,
    Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Appropriations Committee, S-
            125, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the recent opportunity to testify
    on the fiscal 2001 appropriation request of the Joint Economic
    Committee (JEC). After reviewing the record, it became clear that there
    were some remaining issues that needed to be addressed in writing. I
    would respectfully request that this letter be made part of the hearing
    record. In addition, please include the attached research materials in
    the printed record if you deem it desirable to do so.
        During the hearing, questions were raised by another member of the
    subcommittee that suggest some clarification about the functions of the
    Joint Economic Committee may be useful. The questions raised the issue
    of whether JEC research on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for
    example, was really needed since a member could request a memo on this
    subject from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). My response
    essentially was that JEC research on the IMF, as well as other topics,
    permits greater depth and thus provides much more information than
    would be possible in even a very fine CRS memo.
        My statement was a general one and since this question was
    unexpected I did not have full supporting documentation available at
    that moment. Enclosed please find the 8 JEC studies, together with
    printed and bound records of 5 JEC hearings on the International
    Monetary Fund (IMF). Additional information is available on our JEC
    website, rated one of the top three committee websites on Capitol Hill
    by the nonpartisan Congressional Management Foundation. Those who
    follow issues related to the IMF are very aware of this JEC research
    and the effects it has had on the institution and its reform. This
    research was the basis of IMF reform legislation passed by Congress in
    1998 and 1999 that will save taxpayers many millions of dollars over
    time.
        As a former IMF research director recently wrote, ``the Fund's
    jerry-built structure of financial provisions has meant that almost
    nobody outside and, indeed, few inside, the Fund understand how the
    organization works * * *.'' I believe that Congress should understand
    how the IMF works because of the important financing and policy making
    role played by the U.S. Congress has appropriated $50 billion for the
    IMF, and thus has a responsibility to know how this money is being
    used.
        The factual record shows that this research program has provided
    much more original information on the financial structure and
    operations of the IMF to Congress and the public than any other source.
    I am pleased at the success of this research program given the
    extremely challenging and difficult subject matter and the lack of
    transparency of the IMF. Moreover, in response to this research
    program, the IMF has moved towards more disclosure of its finance, and
    finally has committed to publicly releasing its budget. These results
    could not be obtained by a memo reviewing already existing information.
        I hope this letter clarifies some of these issues. Thank you again
    for the opportunity to testify.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Jim Saxton,
                               Vice Chairman, Joint Economic Committee.

            Selected JEC Publications on the IMF and Monetary Policy

        1. Can IMF Lending Promote Corruption? (December 1999)
        2. Research Findings Regarding the Costs of U.S. Participation in
    the IMF (October 1999)
        3. JEC Statements Before the International Financial Institution
    Advisory Commission (September 9, 1999)
        4. IMF Gold Sales in Perspective (August 1999)
        5. Transparency and the Financial Structure of the International
    Monetary Fund (Hearing, July 21, 1999)
        6. Transparency and U.S. Dollar Policy (July 1999)
        7. An International Lender of Last Resort, the IMF, and The Federal
    Reserve (February 1999)
        8. Compendium of Studies on International Economic Issues (December
    1998)
        9. U.S. Dollar Policy: A Need for Clarification (November 1998)
        10. IMF Reform: Proposals to Stabilize the International Financial
    System (Hearing, October 7, 1998)
        11. Financial Crises in Emerging Markets: Incentives and the IMF
    (August 1998)
        12. The Transparency and Financial Structure of the IMF (Hearing,
    July 23, 1998)
        13. The International Monetary Fund and International Economic
    Policy (Hearing, May 5, 1998)
        14. IMF Financing: A Review of the Issues (March 1998)
        15. The International Monetary Fund and International Policy
    (Hearing, February 24, 1998)
        16. Transparency and Federal Reserve Policy (November 1997)
        17. A Response to Criticisms of Price Stability (September 1997)
        18. Establishing Federal Reserve Inflation Goals (April 1997)
        19. The Importance of the Federal Reserve (March 1997)
        20. Lessons from Inflation Targeting Experience (February 1997)

        Senator Bennett. In this same category, let me comment on
    what I think was a significant contribution of the Joint
    Economic Committee last year. And I think that because I was
    involved. That is always the criteria, I think, that many have
    used.
        We held a high-tech summit where we had Bill Gates and Lou
    Gershner and Alan Greenspan and a whole series of high-tech
    CEOs come in and discuss with us the impact of high tech on the
    economy as a whole. It ran over a 3-day period. And we
    attracted enough attention that one of the freshman Members of
    the House came over. And I was visiting with him, thanking him
    for coming. And he said, ``My wife was watching this on
    television and said to me, `You'd better get over there and be
    part of that committee, because this is the best thing that has
    come out of the Government in a lot of years.' '' So at least
    one Congressman's wife responded very favorably to it.
        I think, Senator Feinstein, your point is well taken in
    that there are other venues in which some of this work could be
    done. And Senator Mack and I looked at that very carefully when
    he was the chairman of the subcommittee. And he has been
    chairman of a subcommittee of the Banking Committee that covers
    many of the issues that the Joint Economic Committee looks at.
        And an argument could be made. There is duplication, for
    example, in Alan Greenspan's appearance before this committee,
    which is mandated by law. The chairman of the Fed must make an
    annual report to the Joint Economic Committee. He is also
    required to make an annual report to the Banking Committee. So
    as a member of the Banking Committee and a member of the JEC, I
    get to hear him twice. It is good for me. I am beginning to
    break the code. After 7 years I am beginning to feel that I can
    understand Alan Greenspan.
        But the decision of the Congress in 1995 was to continue
    the Joint Economic Committee rather than assume that these
    functions could be done other ways. It was a relatively close
    call with a number of members urging that the JEC be done away
    with. But the decision was made, and it has gone forward. And I
    must say that under the chairmanship of Congressman Saxton and
    then Senator Mack, and they alternate each Congress, the JEC,
    since it had its near death experience, has been much livelier
    and, I think, much more productive.
        So the issue you raise is not a new one, but the response
    from the vice chairman here indicates that at least that
    message has been heard.
        I have no further questions.
        Senator Feinstein. If there are reports, could I ask to see
    them, please?
        Senator Bennett. For sure.
        Senator Feinstein. Could someone see that I get some?
        Senator Bennett. Sure.
        Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate it very much.
        Senator Bennett. We will do that.
        Senator Feinstein. I have no further questions.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your service
    on this committee. And thank you for your testimony here today.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR

    ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

        Senator Bennett. Our next witness will be Dan Crippen.
        Mr. Crippen, the Director of the Congressional Budget
    Office (CBO), we welcome you here. I understand you have
    created a new position, the Executive Associate Director, which
    has been filled by Mr. Steven Lieberman.
        Mr. Anderson. I am Barry Anderson. I am the Deputy
    Director.
        Senator Bennett. Barry Anderson. Okay.
        We welcome Mr. Lieberman to the fold, even though he is not
    here at the table.
        Mr. Crippen. He is working.
        Senator Bennett. And we will submit for the record a copy
    of his resume, as well as your new organizational chart,
    because there has been some interest in your organization and
    in that activity.
        CBO has requested $28,493,000 for fiscal 2001, which is a
    9.1-percent increase over your previous level. And we look
    forward to hearing your description of the increase and your
    other activities with respect to this budget.
        [The information follows:]

                   Biographical Sketch of Steven M. Lieberman

        In 1999, Steven M. Lieberman was named to the newly created
    position of Executive Associate Director of the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO). He is also the Acting Assistant Director
    for CBO's new Long-Term Modeling Group. Mr. Lieberman has a
    background in federal budgetary and health care issues. Before
    joining CBO, he was health partner in the EOP Group, a Social
    Security analytic consulting firm, and vice president of
    government programs and marketing at Intergroup Healthcare
    Corporation, a managed care company. Before that, he spent 16
    years at the Office of Management and Budget, focusing on
    Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; he then served as
    assistant director for general management, with oversight of 10
    federal agencies.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE08.000

                                  Y2K SUCCESS

        Mr. Crippen. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, first I wanted to report, as your previous
    witness did and as I am sure all of your subsequent ones will,
    that through your good efforts we made it through the passing
    of the millennium with nary a hiccup, as near as we can tell.
        I would also like to report that our website is up to about
    5 million hits a year now. So it was up and running throughout
    that period--not that a lot of people were hitting it that
    night--but it was running.

                         RELIEF FOR SALARY COMPRESSION

        Before I get into next year, Mr. Chairman, we want to thank
    you for the pay raise you granted me and Barry, not only on our
    behalf but, more important, on behalf of all of my present and
    future colleagues who are effectively capped by our statutory
    limits. Our two salaries are included in the Budget Act
    legislation.
        The salary compression that CBO was experiencing is one of
    the reasons we have had difficulty recruiting and retaining
    personnel. I also want to thank you for giving us limited bonus
    authority for the first time--bonuses that will go largely to
    our nonmanagerial staff on the basis of performance and also to
    help recruit new employees.

                            IMPROVED STAFFING LEVEL

        Mr. Chairman, I first appeared before you not quite 1 year
    ago and reported that in 1998, CBO lost many more staff than we
    were able to replace. The level of actual full-time equivalents
    (FTEs) in 1998 was 205, down from an actual level of 227 in
    1997 and an authorized level of 232. I am happy to report that
    we have made some progress. We were able to employ 215 FTEs
    last year and expect to reach 225 by year's end. Our request
    for next year would allow us to reach 228, just 1 more than in
    1997 and 3 more than this year. We hope to reach our full
    complement by the end of 2002.
        In particular, raising the pay levels for our executive and
    senior staff, which was made possible this year with the
    support of this committee, has allowed us to provide more
    competitive beginning-salary offers to top-quality Ph.D.s in
    economics, as well as to public policy and health experts.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING SHORTFALL

        Last year your counterpart in the House, Mr. Taylor, asked
    us, after we submitted our budget, whether we could reduce our
    request for 2000, given your tight allocation and the attempt
    to live under the cap. After analyzing the time it would take
    us to recruit and hire the people we hoped to add, and after
    assessing our ability to reprogram some 1999 funds, we agreed
    to a funding level for fiscal year 2000 that was $600,000 below
    our initial request.
        Then we, along with everyone else, saw a further
    reduction--in our case, about $100,000--through the across-the-
    board cut. As a result, CBO's appropriation for fiscal year
    2000 provided an increase of less than 2 percent. Combining the
    funding for 2000 with the request that is before you now, CBO's
    funding would increase by 11 percent over the 2-year period,
    which is far below that of any of our sister agencies. Both
    their requests and their subsequent appropriations have far
    exceeded ours.
        I hope you are not surprised to know that I believe in
    budgets and budgeting--for planning, setting priorities, and
    establishing real resource constraints. That is why, Mr.
    Chairman, I agreed to reduce our request for this year, because
    I thought we could make some adjustments and live with the
    reduction. And we have.

                           FISCAL YEAR 2001 INCREASE

        But now we need to regain some ground. This is a well-
    constructed and easily defensible budget. It was built from the
    ground up; it is not simply an extrapolation from prior
    budgets. For example, Mr. Chairman, we carefully reviewed our
    telephone needs and found that we could change equipment and do
    away with about 50 percent of our telephone lines. We are
    moving to less expensive data processing. Our library is
    becoming more virtual. All of these savings are explicit in our
    request and are not subsumed in increases elsewhere.
        Like most of your bill, most of our budget is people and
    computers--86 percent people and 8 percent computers. We need
    to build our strength back toward our authorized FTE level. Our
    request gets us back to where we were in 1997. We are adjusting
    pay schedules to help us compete with organizations such as the
    Federal Reserve and the World Bank. And we are rewarding
    performance and recruiting heavily. While we are happy to be
    able to report, Mr. Chairman, projected surpluses for the
    Federal budget as a whole, I assure you that there are no
    surpluses built into this request.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        By the way, I am also happy to report that your monthly
    budget review remains a best seller, at least in the budget
    world.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Dan L. Crippen

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO). The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with
    the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs for making
    decisions about the economy and the budget and to furnish the
    information and estimates required for the Congressional budget
    process. CBO does not make policy recommendations; instead, it presents
    the Congress with options and alternatives in a wide range of subject
    areas, all of which have economic and budgetary impacts.
        The Congressional Budget Office is requesting $28,493,000 for its
    operations in fiscal year 2001, a 9.1 percent increase over the
    agency's fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The funding increase is
    largely necessitated by our need to compensate for a significant
    funding shortfall in 2000--our appropriation increase for fiscal year
    2000 was only 1.8 percent, or $450,000. That was much less than the
    $1.5 million that would have been needed to cover increases in pay and
    benefits for our 232 authorized positions. The 1.8 percent increase was
    also well below the nearly 7 percent average increase that other
    Congressional support agencies received. If we view fiscal years 2000
    and 2001 together, our request implies an 11 percent cumulative
    increase, which is below the analogous amounts for other Congressional
    support agencies.

    Impact of the Shortfall in Fiscal Year 2000

        Because 94 percent of our funding goes to salaries, benefits, and
    computer technology, the resulting $700,000 shortfall from our request
    was impossible to absorb without negatively affecting our staffing and
    technology. To cope with that situation, in fiscal year 2000:

      --We will hold actual staffing to 225 positions, well below the 232
            authorized, even though additional staff are clearly needed in
            a number of areas. Our staff resources will therefore be
            stretched thin in both fiscal years as we endeavor to support
            major new investments in our long-term modeling and analysis of
            the Social Security and Medicare programs, and to maintain
            essential functions such as scorekeeping, budget analysis, and
            economic and revenue forecasting.
      --We will also greatly reduce our spending on computer technology and
            information resources this year. Because we reprogrammed funds
            for computer hardware in 1999, we can survive this cutback for
            one year, but we will also have to delay purchases of needed
            software and certain network hardware.
      --Finally, we must tightly control most other spending and find
            offsetting savings or reductions.

    Summary of the Request for Fiscal Year 2001

        The request for fiscal year 2001 would allow us to fund the 228
    positions we plan to fill by the end of fiscal year 2000. By early in
    fiscal year 2002, we hope to reach our authorized staff ceiling of 232
    positions. The requested funding also:

      --Provides a pay adjustment of 3.7 percent and merit increases of
            $269,000--both of which are down from fiscal year 2000 to
            reflect the cumulative cost-of-living increases of January 2000
            and January 2001 that will help mitigate the pay gap we still
            suffer relative to pay in the private sector.
      --Contains a $588,000 increase in spending for computer technology
            and systems, data, and model development, bringing this
            category back to its historical path after the major cutback in
            the current year. That amount includes $150,000 to begin the
            transfer of costly mainframe applications to a more economical
            platform--a move that could save several hundred thousand
            dollars each year--and $100,000 to purchase new software for
            tracking appropriations.
      --Supports an increasing workload of 11 studies and mandated reports,
            25 papers and memorandums, 2,000 legislative cost estimates and
            mandate cost statements, and a growing number of testimonies
            before Congressional committees (estimated at 30 to 35
            appearances for both 2000 and 2001).

        Even with this request, we continue to be concerned about our
    ability to offer the salaries and benefits needed to attract and retain
    staff in today's tight labor market. We lost a number of very good
    analysts and senior managers in 1999, and we expect a significant
    number of senior staff to retire in the next 12 months. In fact,
    roughly half of our managers and more than half of our top executives
    are currently eligible to retire, and several more will become eligible
    in the next three years.
        Related to these concerns, I would like to take this opportunity to
    thank the Committee for its support last year in providing CBO with the
    authority to give lump-sum performance and recruitment bonuses and to
    raise the pay of our executives. Although we are just beginning to use
    these new authorities, we are already finding the bonus authority to be
    a valuable tool for immediately rewarding extra efforts by our
    employees. The enactment of the new pay levels for my position and that
    of the deputy director has eased and will continue to ease the salary
    compression we have been experiencing. It has also allowed us to raise
    the pay rates for our executive staff, and in turn, we have become
    somewhat more competitive in our hiring.
        Finally, we will do everything we can with the available funding to
    strengthen our recruitment and retention efforts, which I will discuss
    in greater detail later.

    Cost Savings
        Price inflation in our nonpersonnel budget has been quite high,
    particularly in such areas as subscriptions and software. To help
    offset that inflation, we have identified a number of operating-cost
    savings. In fiscal year 1999, for example, we completed moving a
    portion of our timesharing services to the Library of Congress, which
    will save roughly $175,000 per year beginning this fiscal year. In
    addition, we have identified ways to reduce spending on software,
    timesharing, and communications. Those efforts, which should save
    another $100,000 per year, will be phased in during this fiscal year.
    Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1999
        Budget issues were in the forefront of Congressional debate in
    fiscal year 1999, as the Congress struggled to stay within the caps on
    discretionary spending, sought to avoid an on-budget deficit, grappled
    with the question of what to do with the budget surpluses projected
    over the next decade, and dealt with major policy issues in a number of
    significant areas.
        CBO's January 1999 baseline projections of growing surpluses,
    described and documented in The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal
    Years 2000-2009, framed much of the debate that followed. Those
    estimates were revised in July, when CBO prepared a comprehensive
    update of economic developments and its baseline budget projections,
    reporting that better-than-expected economic conditions were likely to
    result in even larger surpluses. Those reports provided accurate
    estimates of the outlays, revenues, and surplus for fiscal year 1999.
    For example, in January, we projected a 1999 surplus of $107 billion,
    and in July, we revised that estimate to $120 billion. Both figures
    were very close to the actual result of $124 billion.
        The appropriation process lasted until November and culminated in
    an omnibus appropriation act encompassing five of the regular
    appropriation bills and a number of other pieces of legislation.
    Throughout that process, CBO prepared estimates for numerous versions
    of each appropriation bill and for a variety of proposed amendments.
    With the intense focus on the discretionary caps and the on-budget
    surplus, CBO was called upon to provide frequent tabulations of
    discretionary spending totals, including amounts designated as
    emergency requirements, with and without scorekeeping adjustments
    specified by the Budget Committees. The task was complicated by the
    need to assess the impact of various obligation delays, advance
    appropriations, and across-the-board cuts. CBO also published a letter
    report in October that explained the key issues surrounding the
    appropriation process, as well as an end-of-session summary of the
    outcome.
        In the course of the debate and discussion on the wide array of
    authorizing legislation addressed by the Congress, CBO provided
    hundreds of formal cost estimates and even more informal estimates to
    committees and individual Members. Those estimates addressed a variety
    of proposals, options, and bills, including the Medicare, Medicaid, and
    SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act; the Defense Authorization Act;
    the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act; the Water
    Resources Development Act; and bills dealing with veterans' health
    care, banking reform, patients' rights, crop insurance, and education
    initiatives. All formal estimates were promptly posted on CBO's World
    Wide Web site so that Members and other interested parties could have
    rapid and easy access to the budgetary figures.
        CBO also actively supported the Congress' consideration of the
    long-term problems facing Social Security and Medicare. We prepared
    detailed analyses of proposals by the President and others to reform
    Social Security and Medicare. We testified on Social Security and
    Medicare before five Congressional committees, and we issued numerous
    reports and cost estimates. To enhance our ability to analyze the long-
    term prospects for those programs and the impact of proposed changes,
    CBO has established a new Long-Term Modeling Group, staffed with
    experts in demographics, statistics, and modeling.
        CBO's estimating responsibilities extend beyond the bounds of the
    federal budget. They include the review and analysis of hundreds of
    reported bills to identify and estimate the cost of mandates imposed on
    the private sector and on state, local, or tribal governments. We
    determined that legislation included one or more mandates in more than
    100 cases and estimated the cost of those mandates. CBO staff has
    worked closely with the National Governors' Association, the National
    Conference of State Legislatures, the League of Cities, the National
    Association of State Budget Officers, and other private, governmental,
    and tribal organizations to ensure that mandates are identified and
    their impacts are projected on the basis of the best possible
    information.
        We believe the quality of our estimates and their relevance to the
    budget process resulted in more requests for CBO to testify before
    Congressional committees and to provide quick-turnaround answers on
    budget questions in the waning hours of the budget process. During the
    year, I and other CBO officials testified 32 times, up from 16 in
    fiscal year 1998, and did so for a wide variety of committees,
    including several appearances before the House and Senate Budget
    Committees, House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Senate Finance
    Committee, House Rules Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and a
    variety of other House and Senate committees.
        In 1999, CBO also resumed the publication of its ``budget options''
    report, which details hundreds of possible methods for reducing
    spending or raising revenues. That volume was made available in an
    interactive version on CBO's Web site (www.cbo.gov). Finally, as a
    result of our Year 2000 renovations and preparations, the
    infrastructure of CBO's information technology and its systems were
    fully operational on January 1, 2000.

    Priorities for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001

        Efforts to reform Social Security and Medicare are expected to
    continue to be a priority for the Congress. To support those efforts,
    we will complete the development and documentation of actuarial and
    microsimulation models for estimating Social Security over the long
    term (75 years), including a benchmark-estimate comparison with the
    estimates of the Social Security Administration. We will also begin
    producing long-range cost estimates and impact analyses of Social
    Security for both current-law and reform proposals, and we will
    continue to develop long-range models for the Medicare program.
        CBO staff will also devote a substantial amount of time to
    analyzing the effects of Social Security reform on aspects of
    retirement and disability policy, interactions between proposed changes
    in Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income program, and
    interactions between Social Security and private pensions.
        CBO also anticipates significant Congressional interest in analyses
    and estimates of legislative proposals relating to commercial,
    environmental, and trade regulation; the effect of technical progress
    on the national economy; expanded Medicare benefits; improved federal
    student-aid programs; the adequacy of funding for defense plans; and
    federal debt management.
        CBO will also continue to focus resources on improving its economic
    forecasts and integrating its economic and budget forecasts.
        In addition to focusing on its mission-related work, CBO, like any
    effective and highly successful organization, must devote some
    resources to attracting talented people, developing their skills, and
    properly equipping them with the needed technology. We must also
    organize our work to be as efficient as possible. Our goals for
    strengthening CBO's internal operations follow.
    Human Resources Priorities to Enhance Recruitment and Retention
        During the next two years, CBO will expand on the initiatives
    undertaken in 1999 to identify, hire, and retain a highly talented and
    diverse workforce by strengthening our recruitment strategies,
    investing more in training and staff development, and reconfiguring our
    space so that it better meets the needs of our staff. In particular, we
    will:
      --Strengthen Our Recruitment Strategy.--Our goal is to focus our
            efforts and resources on quickly filling key vacancies,
            particularly in hard-to-attract disciplines, while building a
            more diverse workforce.
          In 1998 and 1999, CBO experienced an unusual number of vacancies.
            Unfortunately, because of a tight labor market, we were unable
            to quickly replace the individuals who left. By the end of
            1999, we were therefore still short of our staffing needs.
            Although we were able to meet our mandates, that shortfall
            created a hardship for many of our staff, and it meant that our
            ability to produce major studies suffered somewhat.
          Our efforts have already begun, and a recruiting task force
            recently presented me with recommendations on how to improve
            our recruiting system. We plan to target a more diverse set of
            schools, develop better recruiting materials, capitalize more
            on our summer internship program, and devote more staff and
            travel resources to recruiting. We will also consider a more
            formal orientation and mentoring program for new employees.
      --Improve CBO's Training Programs.--Our goal is to improve management
            and job skills by investing in our people through training,
            education, and professional development and to take greater
            advantage of existing technology in our operations.
          CBO has always invested in the development of its staff, but the
            amount we spend on job training and professional development is
            far less than is spent by world-class firms and other high-
            impact organizations and much less than the amounts recommended
            by management and training experts. CBO spent less than 0.5
            percent of its personnel costs on training in 1999, compared
            with as much as 6 percent for high-performing professional
            firms. During the next two years, we hope to shift some
            resources to training, education, and professional development,
            and we are now working on a new training policy to carefully
            target those resources.
      --Modernize and Revitalize Our Working Environment.--Our goal is to
            reconfigure and, where necessary, renovate offices to better
            use our space and to provide a quality work environment for new
            employees and those currently in inadequate space.
          Most of CBO's space was configured shortly after the agency's
            creation 25 years ago in a building originally designed to
            house files, not people. At that time, there were no desktop
            computers, a much larger number of support staff, less
            specialization among employees, and an employment marketplace
            that was not nearly as competitive. Consequently, a significant
            percentage of the space is configured for clerical staff, while
            many analysts have work space that is inadequate and much less
            desirable than that of our competition.
          If we are to be competitive in the employment marketplace and
            attract and retain employees who are highly sought after, our
            facilities-related problems must be addressed. In cooperation
            with the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, we have
            developed a range of strategies to address those problems, and
            we believe that we can make substantial progress during the
            next three years without significantly increasing our current
            spending on equipment and facilities.

    Communications Priorities

        The value of CBO's work to the Congress and the public is directly
    related to the quality, readability, and easy availability of our
    written products. Over time, the electronic versions and electronic
    delivery of our analyses have increased in importance, and the demand
    for our electronic products continues to grow. Our Web site currently
    receives more than five million hits per year, and that activity is
    expected to continue to grow. At the same time, however, the demand for
    printed copies of our reports remains very strong.
      --Enhance CBO's Web Site.--Our goals are to respond to the demand for
            CBO products in electronic form and expand the number of
            relevant past publications that are available electronically.
          In fiscal year 2000, we plan to add more ``best selling''
            publications from earlier years to our Web site and expand the
            use of interactive products such as the ``budget options''
            report. Such interactive versions of our publications respond
            to users' demands for more targeted information that will
            enable them to quickly locate the portions of the report that
            are relevant to their interests.
      --Centralize Report Production and Modernize Report Format.--Our goal
            is to achieve a consistent, high-quality product and standard
            ``corporate'' look for studies, reports, papers, memorandums,
            testimony, and other products while achieving efficiencies.
          We plan to centralize final production of our publications with
            our editorial staff. That should save analysts' time, improve
            the appearance and consistency of our documents, and make
            production more economical.

    Internal Management Priorities

        As noted earlier, highly effective organizations must build a
    skilled staff and then provide the technology and work processes
    necessary to support that staff.
      --Maintain Our Technological Edge.--Our goal is to continue to
            provide the best, most affordable technology systems to support
            the agency's mission while constantly improving the performance
            of those systems and employees' satisfaction with them. That
            effort focuses on desktop hardware and software, reproduction
            equipment, communications, data processing, access to the
            Internet, and analytical modeling.
          CBO has invested steadily in its technology over the past few
            years. As a result, every employee has up-to-date hardware and
            software, and our internal network, Web site, and
            communications are among the best in government. That allows us
            to accommodate a tight budget in 2000, but we must restore
            spending in fiscal year 2001 to remain effective and to
            adequately support the Congress.
          Our objectives for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 are to (1) continue
            to upgrade our network and communications hardware; (2) provide
            additional training to employees using our current technology
            and software; (3) identify and implement operating-cost
            savings; (4) improve network security; and (5) support the
            reengineering and automation of key work processes.
      --Streamline Procurement.--Our goal is to modernize our procurement
            process to emphasize a streamlined, paperless process with
            greater emphasis on competition in purchasing.
          During fiscal year 2000, we will investigate processes and
            software used by other organizations and begin redesigning our
            procurement process. In 2001, we hope to implement a new system
            for processing purchase requests, issuing purchase orders, and
            tracking obligations, orders, and payments.
      --Reengineer Key Work Processes.--Our goal is to rethink and redesign
            all major administrative processes to reduce staff burden and
            costs.
          During the next two years, we will survey our key administrative
            processes to identify targets for redesign. We will then
            appoint redesign teams to develop processes that are more
            efficient and less paper intensive, which will reduce the staff
            time necessary for performing and recording transactions.

    Conclusion

        Mr. Chairman, CBO's recent budget requests have been modest. Our
    actual increase for fiscal year 2000 was only 1.8 percent, well below
    what was needed to maintain current services and make modest
    investments for the future. We are operating a sophisticated enterprise
    in a highly competitive environment. Other agencies, organizations, and
    businesses offer more attractive compensation packages than we do, and
    many offer a more attractive work environment. Not only do we find it
    increasingly difficult to attract highly qualified personnel, but a
    large cadre of our senior staff is nearing retirement age. Indeed, over
    the past year, we have lost some key personnel whose absence is keenly
    felt at the operational level. At the same time, the Congress is
    placing ever greater demands on CBO to provide a wider range of
    assistance than in the past. If we are to continue meeting the needs of
    the Congress, we must have adequate resources. Although our request may
    appear substantial, it would essentially bring us even with other
    Congressional agencies over the two-year period and ensure our ability
    to maintain the existing level of service.

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I particularly
    appreciate the attitude toward the budget, which is a build
    from the ground up kind of exercise, rather than an
    extrapolation from the previous year. You do not have to do
    that every year, but you have to do that more often than people
    often do.
        Mr. Crippen. This was our first budget since we arrived at
    CBO. Last year's budget had already been submitted by the time
    we got there.

                      A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE Y2K SCARE

        Senator Bennett. Right. You made a reference to Y2K. And I
    am going to respond by focusing on an aspect of the Y2K thing
    that we have not talked about before, that I think may have
    some interest in your area. A number of people have told me
    that while they got through the Y2K problem without any
    difficulty, and that was a major accomplishment, the long-term
    impact of what they did with respect to Y2K will be the
    experience of having inventoried all of their computers and
    actually finding out how many they had and what they did and
    how they were connected, and that they have made fairly
    significant changes as a result of that inventorying process.
    Even if they did not find Y2K problems, they got an investment.
    Alan Greenspan said to me he feels that will be the most
    significant long-term benefit from the Y2K experience to the
    American economy.
        In this morning's news we are hearing that the productivity
    rate, at least through the fourth quarter of last year, was
    simply stunning, astronomical, an annual rate of 5 percent
    productivity growth. I do not recall any time in history when
    they talked about productivity growing at that rate.
        Whether that had anything to do with the Y2K inventory
    phenomenon or not is immaterial. The fact is, I think, that we
    are seeing a new phenomenon by virtue of the information
    revolution in terms of productivity increases that simply have
    no historical precedent. And I would like to, with that
    buildup, ask a question of you as to how much of your time and
    resources and attention are being focused on an attempt to
    understand the impact of that phenomenon and put it into your
    forecasts.
        Would you care to comment?
        Mr. Crippen. Sure. Let me say before I respond, though,
    that I think the preparations for the Y2K problem had benefits
    even beyond the one you cited--inventorying. Those preparations
    also allowed people to upgrade a lot of old software, which
    will not only run more efficiently but will also probably allow
    them to make more efficient use of computers. In addition,
    preparing for Y2K involved the training of a lot of personnel
    in the information technology field who will now be employed in
    other endeavors, thereby increasing productivity. So Y2K was
    about more than machines. It was, as you suggested, people and
    software that we put in place. In the past 4 years, we have
    seen average productivity growth of about 2.6 percent compared
    with 1.6 percent for the previous 20 years. So we finally----

                       PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY

        Senator Bennett. Let me get that. The last 10 years?
        Mr. Crippen. In the past 4 years, productivity has been 2.6
    percent. In the prior 20 years or so, it was 1.6 percent.
        Senator Bennett. Okay.
        Mr. Crippen. So that is a full percentage-point difference
    in the average for the past 4 years. We have been able to
    identify several factors that have contributed to that
    difference. A good piece of it, frankly, is simply the
    manufacture of computers, which is becoming more efficient, and
    we are getting more power for less money. That is about 25
    percent of the increase in and of itself.
        We have also had some change in accounting in the national
    product accounts, which, by definition, changed some of the
    underlying numbers. But there is a piece of this that is very
    real and not fully understood. We believe it has to do with the
    greater capital investment that we have seen in the past
    several years, and that increase, of course, will pay off.
        What we have incorporated in our forecasts--and one of the
    reasons that our surplus estimates increased between last year
    and this--is that we took about 0.6 of the 1 percentage-point
    increase and assumed it was going to continue. That will yield
    average productivity growth of a little more than 2 percent
    over the next 10 years. That estimate may be low, but we were a
    little concerned that we only have 4 years of information on
    the increases and are not quite sure we know exactly where it
    is coming from. But we are pretty comfortable with saying that
    a little more than half of the recent productivity increase is
    permanent and is going to continue. There is no reason to
    think, for example, that the computer efficiencies--the more
    power for less money--are going to slow down. We are not
    reaching physical or theoretical limits yet. So we expect a
    good piece of this increase to continue.

                    PRODUCTIVITY UNCERTAINTY AND THE SURPLUS

        Senator Bennett. This is not the forum for this kind of
    discussion, but I will comment in case you missed it. In his
    presentation to the Banking Committee last week, Alan Greenspan
    was asked: Are your numbers real? That is, are the CBO's
    numbers real? Particularly with respect to the surplus. And he
    said, ``Well, we don't know, because we have had such a short
    period of time in which to evaluate what is causing the river
    of revenue to come in to the Federal Treasury.''
        And he said if it's permanent, then the CBO numbers are way
    low. The surplus will be substantially bigger over the next 10
    years than the $4 trillion that CBO is projecting. On the other
    hand, if it is temporary, the surplus could disappear. So he
    said what CBO has done is just pick a number somewhere in the
    middle that seems prudent. And he said all of the other
    forecasters have done the same thing, but nobody really knows,
    because we have not had a long enough period of time.
        And of course, if it turns out we have had a very
    fundamental change in the way things work so that the 2.6
    percent number stays constant for the next 10 years, then yes,
    the $4 trillion figure will be low.
        Now you are confirming----
        Mr. Crippen. Yes. Absolutely. I think we know a bit more
    about where the revenues are coming from; that is to say, from
    capital gains realizations and upper-income taxpayers and from
    more people being pushed into the upper brackets because of
    real growth in wages and other income. But that is not to say
    we know the sources of the income.
        And that is what I think the chairman was referring to with
    productivity. He has been talking longer than we have about a
    new economy and the implications for the future. But again,
    after 4 years of reality hitting us in the face and of
    underestimating the flow of revenues, we thought that it was
    useful to incorporate some of the things that we do know. And
    we do know about computer production and some other factors
    that we are convinced will continue to have an effect.
        Our latest report, ``The Budget and Economic Outlook:
    Fiscal Years 2001-2010'', included a chapter on the uncertainty
    surrounding our projections, which goes through the many things
    that could be worse or better than we think. We have a
    pessimistic alternative that combines a number of bad events,
    if you will, and an optimistic alternative that suggests much
    larger surpluses if the productivity increases continue at
    their recent rates.
        So whenever anybody is talking about the next 10 years, as
    we do in these reports, they are talking about projections, not
    estimates. Projections are an educated guess. By the end of
    about the sixth or seventh year, all of the numbers drive back
    to a steady-state forecast that says we believe the economy can
    grow at about 3 percent a year, by the end of the decade. But
    that is a guess.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. I have a question. It is not really on
    the subject, but it has to do with this. It is really a
    California question, because our GDP is very good. And about 25
    to 30 percent of our jobs are involved in the global
    marketplace. And yet, the wage gap is becoming profound. I do
    not have the exact figure, but it is something like a drop of
    $2,900 per worker in the lower fifth in wages.
        California will shortly be a minority/majority State. I
    have very deep concerns about classes kind of war, rich versus
    poor kind of war. It is also a high cost of living State. And,
    I would suspect there is some of this wage gap existing all
    across the United States, except perhaps not as profound as we
    are finding it in California.
        Do you have any insight as to the reasons or what could be
    done to correct it?

                           DISPARATE GROWTH IN INCOME

        Mr. Crippen. I agree wholeheartedly with you that a
    profound public policy issue for the next few years is probably
    going to be dealing with disparate income growth among people
    in this country. Despite the way the economy is growing and
    will probably continue to grow, there is at the moment a group
    of people who seem to be stuck, whose income is not growing.
        We need to be careful about how we frame the issue. If, as
    I have seen recently in some of the popular literature, we are
    talking about families, for example, the picture is perhaps
    partially distorted, because the families in the top income
    quintile tend to be married, two-worker households--maybe
    mostly professional--whereas families in the lowest income
    quintile tend to be households headed by a single mother. When
    we talk about families, a lot of socioeconomic characteristics
    go along with the numbers. So we have to be careful about
    defining the issue.
        The bottom quintile also includes a lot of people who move
    out of that income group. But by definition, of course, because
    you cut family income into five pieces, somebody is going to be
    moving in. So there is a migration out and up that we also need
    to be conscious of.
        A recent study concluded that people with less than $10,000
    of income (in current dollars) tend to get stuck--that is, they
    will not move up and out. And it partly has to do with
    education. Most of those people do not have anything beyond a
    high school education. And so we need to concern ourselves with
    that group of people. I do not know enough about the causation
    to say that it is merely an education problem. But we are
    beginning, at least, to get a better sense of who the people
    are and why they are stuck.
        In the case of California, I have seen one study that
    suggests that the disparities there are a little greater than
    average because the State has a lot of entry-level workers and
    accounts for a large share of the immigrants that this country
    accepts, many of whom fall in the lowest income quintile. But
    many of them do get out of the bottom quintile over the first
    few years. So California is one of the places where people come
    into the country, have their first employment, have lower
    wages, and then move on.
        Senator Feinstein. Nationally, does that bottom quintile
    remain static in numbers, or is it growing in numbers?
        Mr. Crippen. Well, no. Because we split income into five
    pieces, the number of people in there tends to stay the same
    because it is a fifth of our population, by definition.
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, I see. Oh, all right.
        Mr. Crippen. So that does not tell you much. You have to
    look at the people in the group. And that is what some of the
    newer studies are doing--looking at the people as they grow and
    move into the second and third quintiles rather than stay stuck
    in the bottom. So it is very much a changing group of people.
    And in that sense, it is less worrisome as a policy issue than
    if that fifth were the same people and stayed there forever. We
    are finding that is not the case.
        Senator Feinstein. But, you see, my point is that we have a
    growing number of people not making very much money and not
    being able to get out of it. As a matter of fact, you know,
    parts of California Bay are beginning to look like a third
    world country. To be very honest with you, it's a very serious
    problem; and because everything is high tech and bio tech, our
    whole manufacturing base has changed dramatically. And yet, as
    you say, we continue to accept about 50 percent of the nation's
    migration. It is presenting a huge social dilemma, which really
    could blow up in some major ways.
        And, I do not know what really addresses it. For example,
    if you have a single mother with two children, it costs her
    $15,000 a year for the basic lowest rent, lowest food, lowest
    clothing, lowest child care, which means she has to hold three
    minimum-wage jobs to be able to pay that amount, as it all
    works out.
        I mean, it is almost an impossible circumstance for people.
    And, when you get large numbers, too, I think that it presents
    a deepening social crisis. That is what I believe we are
    facing--how to diversify a work base, particularly when you
    have the affluence we have. And, we have a 5 percent GDP.
        I guess, for me, this deals with the whole minimum wage
    thing. California's minimum wage is 50 cents above the Federal
    minimum wage. But, we have 37 cities in the United States now
    going for living wages. Part of that is driven, I think, by
    this phenomenon.
        So, I really think we have a brand new phenomenon of a huge
    growth of a have-not class that the economy does not benefit at
    all.

                     SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME IN LOWEST GROUP

        Mr. Anderson. One of the trends you may be citing is that
    not only has the composition of that bottom 20 percent changed,
    but over time that quintile's share of total income has
    actually shrunk. I do not know exactly what the figures are. I
    think it is----
        Senator Feinstein. That is right.
        Mr. Anderson (continuing). Down to 1 percent or 2 percent.
    By contrast, people in the top 20 percent--the same number of
    people--now have about 50 percent of the total income.
        As the chairman said in his introductory remarks with
    respect to productivity, we at CBO do spend some time looking
    at international comparisons. Y2K was not a problem unique to
    the United States, nor were the solutions or computers that
    were applied to try and fix the problems. But what is
    relatively unique to the United States is our productivity
    growth, which is much higher than that of other countries. And
    we ask, Why are we doing better?
        The same thing applies to income distribution. We have a
    greater share of total income in the upper-income quintile than
    do most other, if not all other, developed countries. But as
    Dan points out, we also have mobility; if we had a static group
    in the bottom 20 percent, I think the social problems would be
    much, much worse than they are now. But fortunately, we do
    allow for a lot of mobility. That mobility works in both
    directions. The people in the top 20 percent--the ones with all
    that income--sometimes move down, too. But we have that
    mobility with the people at the bottom.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you: Are we sure, are you
    sure, that such mobility is taking place as much now as it did?

                      WORKFORCE CONSTRAINTS ON THE ECONOMY

        Mr. Crippen. Actually, it looks like it has accelerated a
    little. I mean, it is happening faster, except for this class.
    As I said, this study suggests that people without a high
    school education are stuck, that they are not moving up. But
    beyond that, there is a lot of mobility up and out.
        In your State, in particular, that phenomenon is driven by
    immigration. And that is something that we are going to have to
    deal with at the national level. For example, we assume that
    over the long run, our economy can grow at about 3 percent a
    year in real terms. Two percent of that, roughly, is
    productivity. One percent is an increase in the workforce.
        We are becoming constrained, not just in the current low
    employment rate but in the number of people we can anticipate
    coming into the workforce. If, for example, that 1 percent
    became 2 percent because of immigration or some other policy
    change, you would obviously raise the ability of this economy
    to grow dramatically.
        And as we see in our numbers, the difference between 3
    percent and 4 percent, or 2 percent and 3 percent, is a lot. So
    we are going to have to promote, allow, encourage immigration
    to help our future economic growth. But at the same time, as
    you are pointing out, there are certain consequences that the
    rest of the country may not be feeling uniformly. And our
    ability to assimilate those folks will depend on more than just
    the H-1B visa. Is that the----
        Senator Feinstein. That is it.
        Mr. Crippen. I was talking to Senator Bunning awhile back,
    and Kentucky is having difficulty finding labor for the farm
    community--not just migrant workers but labor, period. And so
    it is not just high-tech companies that need help; it may be
    others as well. Immigration writ large is going to be an
    important issue for our economy to face.
        Senator Feinstein. If we could just talk for a minute. One
    of the things that is also happening--and I have spent some
    time on this now--is very bad farm labor contractors. They go
    out and bid on something, and they outbid each other. And, the
    only way they can outbid each other is by not paying the
    workers. So, increasingly, there are groups of farm workers who
    are not getting paid even what they should be.
        And, I think, it is escalating in our State because we have
    a lot of monolingual farm laborers in the workforce. In other
    words, they do not speak English very well. I think there are
    some huge social problems coming out of all of this affluence,
    which are masked by the affluence, and the kind of glitz of
    this new economy.
        On the way back yesterday, I sat next to a man on the
    plane. He was so high tech that I did not understand him. It
    was like he was speaking a whole different language. His
    interests were so restricted, so narrow, so lack-of-caring for
    anything else around him, that it really was kind of arrogant--
    you know, sort of the sweatshirt and loud on the cell phone. It
    is a kind of arrogance that is permeating our economic
    structure.
        Mr. Crippen. It used to be investment bankers. Now it is--
    --
        Senator Feinstein. Yes. Right. And it is really causing me
    concern, because I can see what happens in California, both
    good and bad. Then, it passes on to other States. So, it is
    serious.

                             MOBILITY OF WORKFORCE

        Mr. Crippen. One of the things that is notable in the U.S.
    experience is the mobility of our labor force--the ability to
    change jobs or, maybe, the necessity to change jobs. That
    mobility distinguishes us from Germany and other European
    countries in particular.
        So Government intervention to help take care of some of the
    income disparities and other things could be harmful if it
    interferes with that mobility, which is an advantage in our
    economy. That is not to say one should not take notice of and
    design policies to address disparities, but it has to be
    carefully done because the lesson seems to be that labor
    mobility is really what is distinguishing our current economy.
        Senator Bennett. Chairman Greenspan has made that point.
    And as we look at Europe, if you cannot get a job in Italy, let
    us say, in the European community, you are much less likely to
    move to Belgium where the jobs may be, than, by comparison in
    the United States, if you cannot get a job in California, you
    may move to Utah. And we have seen a lot of that, by the way.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes.
        Senator Bennett. Utah's growth, at least a few years ago,
    was driven, if I may, by the anti-business attitudes that for a
    while were in Logan, California. Our Governor used to say that
    the greatest economic development agency in the State of Utah
    is the State legislature in California.
        And I was one of those. I lived in California and moved to
    Utah, because we felt we could grow our business better in
    Utah. That kind of mobility--my children grumbled a little,
    changing schools and so on. But that kind of mobility is
    standard in the United States. And in Europe, where you go to a
    whole new culture, whole new language, you may have the same
    currency now in the Euro, but you are much less likely to pack
    up and change citizenships. Whereas in the United States,
    changing your citizenship from California to Utah, or the other
    way, you have been the State that has seen the most mobility
    going in that direction.
        Senator Feinstein. Bob, here is the main thing in all this:
    Our figures predicated that, in the next 20 years, there will
    be another 15 million people in the State; so we will have 50
    million people. I mean, if most of this would go to Utah, if
    there was a spread; it would be great, because you could handle
    it. But, go into a school, K through 6, with 5,000 students, 60
    different languages; who can ever learn anything? And, that is
    sort of what it is coming down to without the basic
    infrastructure to deal with any of this.
        Senator Bennett. We are at our own level facing the same
    problem in Utah. We are looking at the growth that is coming
    and saying, how in the world are we going to house all these
    people? How in the world are we going to transport them?
        Senator Feinstein. Anyway----
        Senator Bennett. Anyway.
        Senator Feinstein. We are not going to eliminate CBO,
    right?
        Senator Bennett. We are not going to eliminate CBO.
        Mr. Crippen. I was waiting for that question.

                            USING THE HOUSE COMPUTER

        Senator Bennett. Here is a very minor, very technical
    question, that we probably ought to have on the record. You
    include a request for $150,000 to study solutions for the
    transfer of mainframe applications. Is this related to your
    pattern of sharing time with the House computer system? And if
    so, will the House allow CBO to continue to reimburse for this
    resource, or are you looking for someplace else to go?
        Mr. Crippen. The short answer to your question is, yes. We
    currently have about half a million dollars a year in the
    budget to pay House Information Resources (HIR) for computing
    services, largely for our Budget Analysis Division. As of last
    night, HIR informed us that they want us to migrate off their
    mainframe much more quickly than we had anticipated. So we may
    actually have to begin before next year.
        Senator Bennett. They want you to move from California to
    Utah.
        Mr. Crippen. They do. We can do a lot of this stuff
    remotely, from almost anywhere. We have already migrated a lot
    of our systems off the HIR mainframe, because HIR does not want
    anybody using their computers. And, in fact, HIR will probably
    get rid of their mainframe eventually and become a micro-park
    upstairs.
        We have moved a lot of things to the Library of Congress
    and have actually saved a fair amount of money by doing so. The
    Library charges much less than HIR.
        So our dilemma is that we are going to move off the HIR
    mainframe sooner than we had anticipated, but hopefully not
    until the end of, roughly, 2002 or so, when we were planning
    to, rather than by the end of 2000, which may be facing us. If
    it is 2000, we will have to start this year to figure out how
    to move some of our systems.
        Senator Bennett. And will that involve increased costs, if
    you have to move----
        Mr. Crippen. No. Actually, the move should save us money
    once it's completed because we have already saved several
    hundred thousand dollars in moving other applications from HIR
    to the Library of Congress, which is willing to give us a
    fixed-fee service contract. We pay them $100,000 a year: about
    half of that goes to licensing, and the other half is a fixed
    fee for as much computer time as we need for our statistical
    analysis processing.
        So it has saved us several hundred thousand already to
    migrate. We need to. We want to. The question is how quickly we
    can make that move.
        The system, by the way, that is still on the HIR mainframe
    is for our Budget Analysis Division, which does the true
    number-crunching. When you report a bill out of another
    committee and ask for a cost estimate, it is our BAD staff who
    do the work. So it is not a system that we can blithely shut
    down, move, and try to re-up. The move has to be made
    carefully. And there are not many downtimes during the year in
    which to make that transition.
        Senator Bennett. I want to say thank you to your agency and
    for your willingness to engage us today----
        Mr. Crippen. Absolutely.
        Senator Bennett (continuing). In this conversation.
        Mr. Crippen. That is what we are here for.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Bennett. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., Tuesday, February 8, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
    February 22.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Stevens.
        Also present: Senator Campbell.

                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF
                REPRESENTATIVES, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
            HON. JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE, MEMBER,
                CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
            ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER, CAPITOL
                POLICE BOARD
            GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order. I
    have firsthand experience of what is happening downtown with
    respect to the semis and the tractors, and expect that we will
    be having other members of the subcommittee join us as that
    problem works itself out.
        We are happy to welcome Senator Campbell. While not a
    member of the subcommittee, he is a member of the full
    committee and has an interest in the subjects we will be
    discussing today. Senator, we are delighted to have you here.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. This is the second of four hearings that
    the subcommittee is holding on the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request. As I say, we have held one. The other two will be
    February 29 and March 7.
        Senator Feinstein will not be able to join us today. She
    has asked that her statement be included in the record, which
    of course we will do.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on
    the fiscal year 2001 budget requests being presented to the
    Subcommittee today.
        First, with regard to the Capitol Police Board's budget, I
    believe that we need to do everything we can to see to it that
    our facilities here in the Capitol complex are as safe as they
    can possibly be--not just for our Members and staff, but for
    all our citizens.
        During the last two years, we have made major investments
    for enhancing security. The additional funds provided to the
    Capitol Police in fiscal year 2000, along with the emergency
    funds in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, have
    been of great benefit in bringing on board many new recruits,
    and in helping to provide our sworn officers with the necessary
    up-to-date equipment, which they need to effectively carry out
    their mission. And, during this process, we have identified
    other areas which will need to be addressed with additional
    resources or manpower in the future. The Capitol Police Board
    still has a long way to go to bring the department up to where
    it should be in terms of technology and training.
        I congratulate Chief Abrecht and Sergeants at Arms
    Livingood and Ziglar for the work and dedication they have put
    into the security enhancement program, but I'm sure they would
    all agree that we still have much more to do. I look forward to
    receiving their testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, on a personal note, I would like to take this
    opportunity to express my gratitude to Chief Abrecht for his
    many years of service to the Congress. It is my understanding
    that Chief Abrecht will soon retire, and I just wanted to
    extend to him and his family my best wishes for the future. We
    will certainly miss him here.
        And, as always, I look forward to receiving the testimony
    of Dr. Billington, the distinguished Librarian of Congress. The
    Library is constantly undergoing change, not only to adapt to
    the way in which we operate in Congress, but to address the
    fluid nature of the public's demand for knowledge. I think that
    the Library has performed remarkably in recent years, given the
    dynamics of today's technology.
        I also welcome the testimony of our other distinguished
    witnesses on behalf of the Government Printing Office and the
    Joint Committee on Taxation.
        I do have a few questions, which I would like to submit to
    several of today's witnesses for response; and, with your
    permission, Mr. Chairman, would like to have those included in
    the record.

        Senator Bennett. Now, today we will hear testimony from the
    Capitol Police Board, the Library of Congress and CRS, the
    Government Printing Office, and the Joint Committee on
    Taxation. So we will start with the Capitol Police Board. The
    chairman of the board this year is Wilson Livingood, the
    Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. Mr.
    Livingood, we welcome you on this side of the Capitol, joined
    of course by Jim Ziglar, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the
    Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Alan Hantman, and Chief Abrecht.
        Chief, we notice, take appropriate official notice of your
    retirement and want to make official comment for the record of
    thanks for your service, recognition of your dedication in this
    assignment. You have had an impact on helping make the Capitol
    Police more professional. I particularly appreciate that and
    understand that.
        I was here as a Senate staffer, began indeed as a Senate
    intern in the 1950's, and I remember when it was called ``the
    campus cops'' because a Senator had the right of patronage for
    the police, and some of Utah's most prominent lawyers did all
    of their studying while sitting behind a desk wearing a badge
    as members of the Capitol Police. One of them who was a member
    of the State legislature in Salt Lake, who was here on my
    father's patronage, said, if anything had ever happened that
    would have required me to draw my gun I would not have had the
    slightest idea how to do it or what to do with it once I got it
    out of the holster; I was entirely a figurehead, going to law
    school at night and doing all of my studying at my post.
        We have come a long way since then. Unfortunately, we need
    to have come a long way since then. You were part of the effort
    that has brought that professionalism, and we want to thank you
    for it officially and acknowledge your contributions.
        Mr. Abrecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Bennett. Now, the Capitol Police have requested a
    total of $110,858,000 for fiscal year 2001. For those who
    follow numbers closely, this is an increase of 31 percent over
    last year. Everybody is going to gasp at the 31 percent, but
    there are explanations for that and offsets for it, and it is
    not really as big a jump as it would appear.
        So with that, Mr. Livingood, we look forward to your
    presentation.

                  STATEMENT OF Senator BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I wonder----
        Senator Bennett. Yes, Senator Campbell, we would be
    delighted to hear from you at this point.
        Senator Campbell. Well, first of all, thank you for letting
    me sit on this committee. As you did mention, I am a member of
    the full committee, but not this subcommittee.
        I also want to extend my appreciation for the years of
    service the Chief has given to our community here. I know he
    will be going on to things that are considerably more fun than
    police work. As a former deputy myself, I know it is not a bed
    of roses.
        I am sitting in really just for one thing, as you know, Mr.
    Chairman, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a
    couple tough questions when we get to it. But since the police
    are first up, I want them to know that whatever I have to say
    and the questions I ask do not reflect on my support for our
    police department. As a former deputy, as the guy that was the
    prime sponsor of the Cops on Schools program and the
    bulletproof vest bill and the national museum bill we have in
    this year for a National Museum for American Policemen and as a
    person who was given a service award for coming to the aid of a
    police officer a few years ago, you know that I am on your
    side.
        But I am really concerned about one specific thing and I
    talked to the chairman about it and that is why I am here. That
    is the buy-American provision that we have now in buying
    American equipment. In particular it is the motorcycles that
    are in use for the Capitol Police. I have talked to the Chief
    about this before, Mr. Chairman.
        But since 1994 we have purchased only 3 that I know of of
    American motorcycles out of the something like 75 that they
    have. The little foreign bikes--I cannot understand this myself
    because we do have a buy-American policy for all the other
    vehicles, the four-wheeled vehicles you might say, and yet we
    buy these things that break down and look like junk. One-third
    of them are not even operable that the police have now.
        In 1994, that was the last time they purchased any
    American-made motorcycles, and that was my prime concern. It
    seems to me the intent of Congress last year, when you went to
    bat for the purchase of six new ones, as Chairman Stevens did,
    the chairman of the full committee--in fact, that is why the
    number six was in there. I had recommended three to the
    chairman of the full committee and he said three simply will
    not do it, we need to put more in that budget, and so we did.
        It just seems to me the intent of Congress was somehow
    diverted or there was an end run around it. I wanted to ask
    some questions about that, because I have talked to a number of
    policemen that are on the force, they are working policemen.
    There is no question that they are not equipped now to make any
    traffic stops. They have no lights, as you know. They are
    inadequate in my opinion. They cannot be used for any escorts
    for foreign heads of state. We have to keep calling on the Park
    Service to do that.
        It just seems to me that we made it pretty clear last year
    that we wanted some American heavier motorcycles that could
    take up the slack, and they have not yet been purchased.
        I was also told by one Capitol Police officer if he had
    spotted Russell Weston, the man that killed Officers Gibson and
    Chestnut a couple years ago, if he had spotted him driving on
    the day that he came through town and if he had even seen an
    open weapon on the seat of the car, he would not have been able
    to stop him on one of those little things that they ride now.
        I think that is just totally unacceptable, to say nothing
    that I hear from guests at the Capitol all the time, people who
    come here as visitors, and they end up making sort of a
    laughingstock of our officers that are riding those, those
    little throw-away machines, those foreign machines, and I kind
    of resent that, that our officers should be the butt of
    ridicule and jokes because of the kind of equipment they are
    using.
        So that was my primary reason for being here, Mr. Chairman.
    With the 31 percent request on their increase of budget, I have
    no opposition to that. I have always been one to try to come to
    the aid of a policeman, whether it is budgetary or any other
    way. But it seems to me we ought to take this up, and when I
    have the time I would like to ask a couple of questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Bennett. I think your questions are anticipated,
    and we welcome your being here and we salute you, Senator
    Campbell, for your diligence in following up on this issue.
        Mr. Livingood.
        Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman and Senator Campbell: Thank you
    for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the key points
    in the U.S. Capitol Police budget request.
        Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the service of
    Chief Gary Abrecht. As you are aware, Chief Abrecht has
    announced that he will retire at the end of April. I would just
    like to say that during his tenure he has led the department
    through significant change. He is credited with raising the
    professional reputation and recognition of the U.S. Capitol
    Police. This was accomplished in large part through his vision,
    leadership and guidance.
        Chief Abrecht will always be remembered for the strength
    and compassion he showed following the deaths of our two
    officers in 1998. On behalf of the board, I would like to thank
    the Chief for his service to the department and to the
    Congress, and also to the American people.

                                 Annual budget

        Mr. Chairman, the annual budget for the U.S. Capitol Police
    is driven by a number of factors. Primarily, it is
    representative of the staffing level required to provide
    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 only too frequently in the past and continue
    to be made today.
        In fact, it can be argued that the Capitol complex is
    threatened now more than ever. In recent years, the White House
    and other executive branch agencies and their facilities have
    acquired strengthened security measures. As the most visible
    and accessible symbol of the United States Government and
    American democracy, the Capitol is arguably placed in a more
    exposed situation by the additional precautions taken to
    safeguard the President and the executive branch facilities.
        In contrast to the physical security provided to the White
    House and other installations, the Capitol complex relies
    primarily on a cadre of police officers to provide the barrier
    against terrorist attack and criminal intentions. To repeat,
    the officers themselves are the main line of defense and
    security for the U.S. Capitol.
        Because of the open nature of the Capitol complex, the
    access points to our buildings serve as both our first line of
    detection of a threat and the first line of defense and
    protection against that threat. It is for this reason that
    officer staffing at the entry points is such a critical issue.
        With regard to the number of sworn officers, a 1998
    security survey concluded that, given the nature of our
    mission, we were severely understaffed. This conclusion was
    supported by a separate analysis conducted by an independent
    auditor.
        Based on that report, the department was provided funds by
    the Congress to hire a first increment of 215 additional
    officers over a 2-year period. Once fully trained and deployed,
    these officers will allow us to increase our security posture.
    However, we will still not be able to meet a critical
    recommendation of this report, to staff all building access
    points with at least two officers. In order to fully meet that
    recommendation, which will increase both officer and security
    for the complex, we will need to increase our sworn FTE's by an
    additional 100 officers.
        The board has endorsed this figure and feels that it is
    justified, given the security threat and the task force
    recommendations. Therefore, we have requested funding for these
    additional officers in our budget submission.
        Recently the board and the department working in
    partnership developed the first strategic plan for the U.S.
    Capitol Police. We are committed to ensuring that every aspect
    of this plan is implemented and we will adhere to a structured
    time line to measure our progress and success.

                             FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

        I am pleased to represent that the Architect, working
    closely with the department, has completed the United States
    Capitol Police facilities master plan. Done at the committee's
    direction, the master plan addresses three major facilities
    that are critical to the mission of the department. They are
    the training facility, the vehicle maintenance facility, and
    the offsite delivery center.
        I am deeply concerned about the lack of adequate training
    facilities for the department. Currently the department must
    train in a suite of converted offices in the Ford House Office
    Building and a small amount of borrowed space at Anacostia
    Naval Air Station. Unlike other law enforcement agencies of a
    similar size and mission, the U.S. Capitol Police does not have
    outdoor firing ranges, space and facilities for tactical,
    protective, or officer safety survival training, or areas to
    support any kind of specialty training.
        Clearly, training facilities are needed to support the
    important and diverse missions of the department. Training is
    often cited as one of the most important responsibilities in
    any law enforcement agency. It serves three purposes: One,
    well-trained officers are better prepared to act decisively and
    correctly; two, training results in greater productivity and
    effectiveness; three, training fosters cooperation, unity of
    purpose, and overall department morale.
        The board has endorsed the facilities master plan and feels
    that it is imperative that the Architect is provided with the
    funding he requires to begin implementation before our ability
    to perform our mission is compromised.
        Finally, I would like to commend the men and women of the
    United States Capitol Police for continually performing their
    duty in a diligent and professional manner. We have come an
    awful long way since the days of the campus cops. The level of
    support and funding provided to the Capitol Police must be
    commensurate with the level and quality of service expected by
    Congress and the American people. The funds requested in this
    budget are intended to meet that goal.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        I would also like to thank the committee for last year's
    and the year before's support that you have given, particularly
    in the security enhancement plan. It has been a tremendous
    increase for the Capitol Police in both some personnel and
    equipment. It was needed and I think this will help for the
    future security at the Capitol.
        [The statements follow:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Wilson Livingood
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you today to present the fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the
    United States Capitol Police.
        Mr. Chairman, before I discuss our proposed budget, I would like to
    acknowledge the service of Chief Abrecht. As you and the members of the
    Committee are aware, Chief Abrecht has announced that he will retire at
    the end of April. During his tenure, he has led this Department through
    significant change. The U.S. Capitol Police is not the agency it was
    eight years ago when he took over as Chief. Our mission has broadened,
    the threats we face have grown, and our capabilities have expanded.
    Chief Abrecht is credited with taking us into the 21st century and
    increasing the reputation and professionalism of the Department. The
    final phases of the professionalization of the U.S. Capitol Police were
    accomplished, in large part, due to his vision, leadership, and
    guidance. I will always be thankful for the strength and compassion he
    showed after the deaths of our two officers in 1998. He led the
    Department and the Congress through a difficult time and, most
    importantly, he always had the interests and needs of the surviving
    families and the members of the U.S. Capitol Police foremost in his
    concern. On behalf of the Board, I thank the Chief for his service to
    the Department, the Congress, and the American people.
        The budget submission for the U.S. Capitol Police for fiscal year
    2001 is $110,858,000, which is an aggregate 31 percent increase. Of the
    total request, $100,898,000 is for salaries and $9,960,000 is for
    general expenses. It should be noted that the largest part of the
    increase is for the annualization of salaries for the approved 260
    officers and civilians.
        In the past, we have testified before this and other committees
    regarding the security threat we face on a daily basis. The passage of
    time has only deepened our concerns. The greatest strength of the
    United States Capitol Complex, its openness and accessibility, is also
    its greatest weakness. We must stand ready to respond to a wide-variety
    of violent acts ranging from a lone gunman, a terrorist bombing, and a
    chemical or biological release. It is not a question of if a terrorist
    incident will again occur on U.S. soil, it is now a question of when
    and where. The United States Capitol was been the target of five
    attacks last century; three bombings and two shootings. In the most
    recent event, which occurred in 1998, two U.S. Capitol Police officers
    were murdered while defending the Capitol from a gunman. These and
    other incidents prove that we must be prepared to meet a constant,
    underlying threat to the Capitol Complex. All of these combined factors
    drive both our mission and our staffing requirements.
        In 1998, a comprehensive security survey was conducted of the
    entire Capitol Complex. A blue ribbon task force, comprised of security
    experts from five federal law enforcement agencies, was assembled to
    examine every aspect of our operations and make recommendations for
    improvement. The final report was used as the basis to request the
    additional personnel, equipment, and technology which were ultimately
    approved and funded by Congress. The schedule for bringing these
    projects on line is contained in the Security Enhancement Plan which
    was approved in February, 1999.
        I would like to inform the Committee on the progress we have made
    to date in implementing the various initiatives contained in the
    Security Enhancement Plan. With regard to our staffing increase, we
    have hired 167 new officers, the majority of which are still in various
    stages of training. It should be noted that once an officer is hired,
    it takes six months of training before that officer can be deployed to
    a field position. We will finish hiring the final complement of
    officers by the end of this fiscal year. In addition, we have filled 10
    new civilian positions, 17 positions are presently being filled, and 18
    positions are on hold pending committee authorization. Of the $25.2
    million provided for this effort, we expended $1.7 million for salaries
    and benefits and $7.1 million for overtime in fiscal year 1999. In
    fiscal year 2000, salaries, benefits, and the cost of living adjustment
    will amount to approximately $14.2 million.
        We have also made significant progress in upgrading the equipment
    used by our officers. The Security Enhancement Plan included
    approximately $9.7 million for this effort. We have measured 1,200
    personnel for custom-fitted soft body armor and have issued the new
    body armor to 740 members. We are experiencing a 20 percent return rate
    which is attributable to vendor error in measuring our personnel or in
    the manufacturing process. The vendor is replacing this armor at no
    cost to the Department. We anticipate finishing issuing all new body
    armor by the end of February. Additionally, 406 officers have been
    trained with and issued the new GLOCK 22 .40 caliber pistol. These
    weapons are being issued to our front-line officers first. We will
    finish the transition for all sworn personnel by the end of the year.
    We have also expended funds for uniforms for our newly hired officers
    and we are in various phases of purchasing eight new vehicles. We are
    currently examining emerging technology for our hand-held radios which
    meets both our requirements and Federal Communications Commission
    standards which become effective in the year 2005. We anticipate making
    a purchase of additional radios in the near future with the ultimate
    goal of assigning a radio to every officer. Finally, we are in the
    final stages of procuring bullet resistant podiums to be used by
    officers at building entrances.
        In the past few months we have deployed a significant amount of
    security technology in the field which is used by our officers. I am
    pleased to report that 62 new metal detectors have been installed at
    building entrances and we are awaiting delivery of another 20 units. We
    have also deployed 16 new back-scatter x-ray machines at various
    entrances. Additionally, 6 new large capacity back-scatter x-ray
    machines have been purchased and installed at the Off-site Delivery
    Center. These machines will enable us to more effectively screen
    deliveries to the Congressional buildings, including the House Office
    Buildings which were recently brought on-line.
        The Board and the Department have been moving expeditiously to
    implement the various provisions of the Security Enhancement Plan and
    we have made significant progress. However, many of these initiatives
    are long-term projects which incorporate emerging security technology
    or require capital improvements to our facilities. We will keep the
    committees of jurisdiction apprised of our progress.
        With regard to the number of sworn officers, the report concluded
    that, given the nature of the Capitol Complex and the magnitude of our
    mission, we were severely understaffed. This conclusion was supported
    by a separate analysis conducted by an independent auditor. As
    previously stated, the Department was provided funds to hire a first
    increment of 215 additional officers over a two year period. Once fully
    trained, these additional officers will allow us to increase our
    security posture. However, we will still not be able to meet a critical
    recommendation of the report to staff all building access points with
    at least two officers. In order to fully meet that recommendation,
    which will commensurately increase security and officer safety, we will
    need to increase our sworn FTE level by 100 officers. The Board has
    endorsed this figure and feels that it is justified given the security
    threat and the task force recommendation. Therefore, we have requested
    funding for these additional officers in our budget submission.
        Recently, the Capitol Police Board and the Department, working in
    partnership, developed the first Strategic Plan for the U.S. Capitol
    Police. This plan was built from the ground up through a succession of
    workshops, consultations with all managers, focus group input from all
    levels of the Department, and feedback from outside entities with a
    stake in the operations of the Department. This Strategic Plan
    represents an evolutionary step in the Department's development. In
    preparing this plan, we took a hard look at the Department, objectively
    identified its strengths and weaknesses, and plotted a course designed
    to ensure that it is a well-trained and robust organization, prepared
    for the future, and able to provide the best possible services to the
    community. One aspect of the Strategic Plan addresses the Department's
    financial management situation. We realize that there are major
    problems in our current financial management operation and we are
    actively working with the Committees and the General Accounting Office
    to rectify the situation.
        The success of the Strategic Plan, or any plan for that matter, is
    entirely dependent upon how well it is executed. The Board and the
    Department are committed to ensuring that every aspect of the plan is
    implemented and will adhere to a structured time line to measure our
    progress and success. We believe this budget submission reflects the
    first phase of our effort to address the issues identified in the
    Strategic Plan.
        Another issue that is very important to the Board and the
    Department is the condition of several facilities used by the police.
    The Architect was directed by the Committees to perform a study of USCP
    facility needs and develop a master plan to resolve this pressing
    issue. I am pleased to report that the Architect has completed this
    project and copies of the United States Capitol Police Facilities
    Master Plan have been forwarded to the committees of jurisdiction for
    review. The Master Plan addresses three major facilities which are
    critical to the mission of the Department. They are the training
    facility, the vehicle maintenance facility, and the off-site delivery
    center.
        Mr. Chairman, the capability, proficiency, and efficiency of an
    organization is dependent upon the level of training, knowledge, and
    skills of its personnel. The U.S. Capitol Police is no different. In
    fact, because of the complexity and diversity of its mission, the U.S.
    Capitol Police relies very heavily on providing high-quality training
    to its personnel on a myriad of operational, administrative and
    management functions.
        Currently, the U.S. Capitol Police does not have training
    facilities that are adequate to meet its diverse and important mission.
    All recruit and in-service training is conducted in two converted
    offices in the Ford House Office Building and a small amount of
    borrowed space at the Anacostia Naval Air Station. Unlike other law
    enforcement agencies of a similar size and mission, the Department does
    not have outdoor firing ranges, space and facilities for tactical,
    protective, or officer safety and survival training, or areas to
    support any kind of specialty unit training. Clearly, the current
    training facilities are woefully inadequate to support the mission of
    the Department.
        The vehicle maintenance facility, which supports the operation of
    over 100 police vehicles, consists of a single vehicle lift in a shed
    which sits in a coal yard in southeast Washington. This facility
    suffers from vermin and insect infestation, poor air quality, and lack
    of adequate space. These factors make this facility unsafe and
    unhealthy for the personnel who are assigned there and unfit to meet
    our fleet vehicle maintenance needs.
        Likewise, the off-site delivery center is housed in a converted
    warehouse which is inadequate to fully support the important nature of
    the security screening being conducted. This situation has reached a
    critical stage now that the House has been brought on-line for
    screening of deliveries which is intended to prevent the security risk
    associated with an explosive device entering a building loading dock.
        The Architect has been working diligently to address the facility
    needs of the U.S. Capitol Police. The Board and the Department have
    been and will continue to work closely with the Architect to resolve
    this important issue. The Board has endorsed the Master Plan and feels
    that it is imperative that the Architect is provided the funding he
    requires to begin implementation of the plan before our ability to
    perform our mission is compromised.
        I would like to commend the men and women of the United States
    Capitol Police for continually performing their duty in a diligent and
    professional manner. The responsibilities which rest on their shoulders
    are daunting. Each day, they must ensure the safety and security of the
    Congressional community and the thousands who visit these buildings by
    protecting them from acts of violence. In doing so, they allow the
    national legislative process to proceed unhindered. The level of
    support and funding provided to the U.S. Capitol Police must be
    commensurate with the level and quality of service expected by the
    Congress and the American people. This budget, and the funds requested
    by the Architect, are intended to meet that goal.
        In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for your approval
    and support of the Security Enhancement Plan. Your efforts, and those
    of the other Committees, have allowed us to make significant
    improvements to the level of security throughout the Capitol Complex.
    The remaining recommendations in the Security Enhancement Plan will
    serve as a blueprint for future improvements. A detailed budget for the
    U.S. Capitol Police has been submitted to the Committee. I will be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Gary L. Abrecht

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
    before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the
    United States Capitol Police.
        As you are aware, I have informed the members of the U.S. Capitol
    Police Board that I will retire at the end of April. I am proud to have
    had the opportunity to lead the Department for the past eight years. I
    am also proud that we have made significant strides during that time to
    complete the professionalization of the United States Capitol Police.
    That goal was set by Congress years ago and now, through your
    unflagging support and the hard work of our personnel, it has come to
    fruition. Together, we have met and overcome the challenge of
    transforming the U.S. Capitol Police into the agency its mission
    demanded. The challenge which lies before us now is ensuring the
    Department receives the continued level of funding and support required
    to sustain it.
        In 1998, shortly after the tragic murders of two of our officers
    and the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa, a
    comprehensive security survey of the Capitol Complex was conducted by a
    task force comprised of several federal law enforcement agencies. The
    task force made 450 recommendations, including staffing changes which
    would have resulted in over a 50 percent increase in our sworn
    personnel. Funding for the recommended security enhancements, which
    included a first increment of 260 police personnel, providing upgraded
    equipment to our officers, and obtaining state-of-the-art security
    equipment, was made available through Public Law 105-277.
        We have been aggressively recruiting qualified personnel for sworn
    positions and I am confident we will have met our goal of attaining the
    additional personnel stipulated in the Security Enhancement Plan by the
    end of this fiscal year, although a substantial number will still be in
    training and not available for deployment.
        The increase of officers we currently have onboard, as well as
    substantial usage of overtime, has allowed us to begin to implement an
    increased security posture throughout the Capitol Complex. Primarily,
    we have used the additional officers to staff as many access points as
    possible with at least two officers, which was a significant
    recommendation in the security survey. This level of deployment affords
    greater security to those who work and visit within the Capitol Complex
    and also enhances officer safety.
        However, even when we are able to fully deploy our total authorized
    sworn FTE level, we will still need an additional 100 officers to staff
    all access points at the recommended level. Therefore, we have included
    funding to hire that many officers in our budget request. These
    additional positions represent the continuation of the staffing
    increase which began in fiscal year 1999 and are crucial if the
    Department is to fully satisfy a critical task force recommendation of
    staffing all building access points with a minimum of two officers.
        The requested increase for salaries reflected in the fiscal year
    2001 budget submission is due primarily to these additional officers
    and to the annualization of the 260 FTE previously funded through the
    Security Enhancement Fund. The increase will also sustain the revised
    longevity rates, and differentials for Sunday, holiday, and evening
    shifts that were approved by the authorizing and appropriating
    committees in fiscal year 1999. The funding request for salaries will
    also cover the cost of the anticipated CY 2001 COLA and comparability
    pay, annualization of the CY 2000 COLA and comparability pay, and the
    associated costs of personnel benefits.
        Regarding general expenses, several issues have compelled us to
    request additional funding. Maintaining the proficiency and
    effectiveness of our operational and administrative personnel has
    become a significant concern due to the constantly changing environment
    and complexity of our mission. In order to ensure that they are able to
    meet the requirements of their duties, they must receive the knowledge
    and acquire the necessary skills through training. Also, in order for
    members to maintain mandatory certification requirements, they must
    complete continuing education and certification courses.
        The financial management system currently used by the U.S. Capitol
    Police is antiquated and has been a concern of the Board and the
    committees. Therefore, the Office of Financial Management has entered
    into a cross-servicing agreement with the General Accounting Office to
    migrate to the GAO accounting system. The GAO has estimated that the
    cost of this agreement would be $200,000. If approved, we will migrate
    to the GAO accounting system at the outset of fiscal year 2001.
        As you are aware, the Department currently receives support for
    computers and telecommunications from the Senate Sergeant at Arms. For
    the past several years there has been discussion among the Board and
    committees as to whether the management and accountability for these
    functions would be better served by having the Department budget for
    and administer these functions. If approved, the Department would
    reimburse the Senate Sergeant at Arms for these services. I would like
    to point out that should these amounts not be approved, they will need
    to be restored to the Senate Sergeant at Arms fiscal year 2001 budget.
        The final significant increase in the fiscal year 2001 budget is in
    the category of life-cycle replacement costs. It is essential to the
    operation of the Department that our officers utilize equipment that is
    modern and able to meet the demands of police and security work.
    Therefore, we have requested funding to methodically replace physical
    security systems, vehicles, and police equipment. The Department has
    been unable to adhere to a life-cycle replacement program, particularly
    with regard to fleet vehicle replacement, due to reprogramming and
    other funding restrictions in previous budget cycles.
        The final significant increase in general expenses is attributed to
    the need to modernize the information technology capability of the
    Department. This budget correlates information technology activities
    with the USCP Strategic Plan, the Information Technology Strategic
    Plan, and the IT Modernization Implementation Plan. We are moving
    forward with seed money that was provided to us last year. The
    requested increase will allow us to continue to address IT deficiencies
    and update our system through cross-servicing agreements, outsourcing
    contracts, and use of in-house personnel.
        My concern regarding the inadequacy of several police facilities to
    support the mission of the Department has deepened. Several facilities
    currently used by the Department can no longer support our mission.
    Others are in need of repair or expansion or relocation to another
    site. Another critical area is our lack of training facilities. I feel
    it is a testament to the commitment, resourcefulness, and dedication of
    our personnel to have achieved such a level of training and ability
    given the lack of any semblance of customary police training
    facilities. This issue strikes at the heart of my earlier statement
    regarding ensuring the support necessary to sustain our
    professionalization.
        Last year, the committee provided funding to the Architect to
    develop a comprehensive facilities needs assessment and space plan for
    the Department. The recently completed study, known as the United
    States Capitol Police Master Plan, addresses the long-term facilities
    needs of the Department in areas of training, administrative and
    security operations, and personnel support. I am pleased with the
    recommendations contained in the report and I request your favorable
    consideration of the Architect's funding requests to begin implementing
    the study's recommendations.
        In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the guidance
    and support you have shown me. We each bear a significant
    responsibility to the public in determining what level of security
    should be afforded to the Legislative Branch. I am proud to have led
    such a dedicated and professional group of men and women for the past
    eight years. They provide a valuable service each and every day under
    difficult conditions. It is my hope that Congress continues to ensure
    the Department remains strong and viable because to do so is in the
    best interest of both the institution of Congress and the American
    people.

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        Does any other member of the board have any comment at this
    point before we go to questions? Mr. Ziglar.
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reflect on
    your comments and the chairman's comments with regard to Chief
    Abrecht. The Chief's many accomplishments have been nicely
    outlined, but I would add that he is a man of great integrity
    and that I have come to appreciate him both as a professional
    and as a person, and I think that his integrity is going to be
    something that we will remember for a very long time.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Mr. Hantman.
        Mr. Hantman. I certainly make that unanimous, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Abrecht has been a strong leader for us and really set
    the tone, as you well pointed out earlier on, to change this
    into a really professional police organization, and we are
    hoping to build on that foundation.
        Senator Bennett. Very good.
        You all heard Senator Campbell's comment. Before I turn it
    over to him for specific questions, does anyone wish to address
    the issue that he raised in his opening comment?
        Mr. Abrecht. If I could just make a few other comments
    perhaps to the chairman, and then I will be glad to address Mr.
    Campbell's concern----
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Mr. Abrecht (continuing). Much of which I share.
        First, I would like to thank you for your gracious
    comments, and the board as well. It has been a great ride these
    past 8 years. I do believe we have gotten some things
    accomplished, though not everything we would have wanted to.
    But I would especially like to thank you and particularly your
    staff for the support you have given to the department during
    that time.
        We have made mistakes and we have had to go to ask for help
    from your staff in particular. We have always been well
    received and given the assistance we needed to straighten out
    whatever problems we have had, and a sympathetic ear. I will
    always remember the support that your committee has given to
    the department.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.

                           AMERICAN-MADE MOTORCYCLES

        Mr. Abrecht. To address Mr. Campbell's question, we have
    indeed done the study of the availability of American-made
    motorcycles in the general size range that we are interested
    in. We really do feel that the large Harley-Davidson type
    motorcycle, of which we have the three that you mention, is
    suited for part of our mission. But we really have two missions
    up here. We have a road type of mission, the escorts, but we
    also have a mission to patrol the little parks around here, to
    get in and out of the garages to check them, which is
    essentially, what we would consider a mobilized type of foot
    patrol.
        The ability to get in and out of those parks in a more
    rapid way, to patrol parking lots, we do feel that those very
    large motorcycles are not the most appropriate for that. So
    what we have been looking for is an American-made smaller, but
    not small, motorcycle, really nothing the size of the small 250
    Hondas that we have a large number of, but looking for
    something in between, shall we say.
        We have identified--it is brand new--a new American-made
    motorcycle. It is about 800 cc's. We have asked for one to be
    sent to us for testing and evaluation, and we are hopeful that
    that will be the ultimate solution to our motorcycle needs,
    sort of halfway, if you will, between the small motorcycles and
    the very large ones, which we do not think are suitable for
    driving on pedestrian walkways in the parks, which are a pretty
    critical part of our mission.
        The Senate side in particular has a lot of park area, a lot
    by Capitol standards. They have quite a bit of ground that we
    have to be able to cover, and a small motorcycle is very
    suitable for that.
        We probably could use a small number of additional large
    bikes for doing the roadway patrol as well and the escorts and
    that sort of thing. So I do not think that there is great
    disagreement. I am not sure we need a very large fleet of full
    sized pursuit type motorcycles that the State police might use,
    but we do need to modernize our fleet of intermediate sized
    bikes.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Just so there is no misunderstanding, Chief, to my
    knowledge there are 16 American manufacturers of American
    motorcycles, 16 of them. Of those, about four or five,
    including one that you are familiar with, Mr. Chairman, make
    lighter weight American-mades. Some are composites, they are
    American made with foreign engines. Some are all American.
    There are a whole bunch of them out there to choose from.
        But let me ask you----
        Mr. Abrecht. We really have not been able to identify. We
    keep having this disconnect. If you could provide that
    information, we would love to talk to you.
        Senator Campbell. I can. I will get a list of them in fact,
    so we will be happy to do it.

                              AREA OF JURISDICTION

        Let me just ask you a couple of a little more general
    questions. Was the area of jurisdiction for the Capitol Police
    increased after the tragic deaths of the two officers?
        Mr. Abrecht. No, sir.
        Senator Campbell. It was not. It covers now what, about a
    six city block area? It goes down to New Jersey part way? What
    is it? What are the grounds?
        Mr. Abrecht. There are basically two levels of
    jurisdiction. We have a primary jurisdiction, which is shown in
    the red lines on the map that Lieutenant Nichols is showing
    here. We are responsible for providing police service, we are
    the sole responding police agency, in that area.
        Senator Campbell. You are the sole respondent in that area,
    okay.
        Mr. Abrecht. Yes, we have the only jurisdiction in that
    area. The green line, which is the area you are perhaps
    referring to, is what we call our extended jurisdiction.
        Senator Campbell. And you cooperate with the D.C. Metro in
    that area?
        Mr. Abrecht. Yes, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
    has the primary responsibility for providing police service in
    that area.
        Senator Campbell. You act as backups?
        Mr. Abrecht. We support them to the extent that we can, and
    we have a number of Congressional facilities located in that
    area, so we have business out in that area on a fairly regular
    basis. But we do not undertake to patrol that area for the
    prevention of crime.
        Senator Campbell. Well, the green area is certainly a lot
    bigger than the red area, both of them are too darn big for a
    person on foot or a bicycle to get to in a hurry; is that
    correct? Which means you cover most of that area in a car
    whether you were backup or the primary responding department.
        Mr. Abrecht. We cover that area with a wide variety of
    patrol mechanisms. We do use bicycles quite a bit and have
    found those effective. We use cars and we do have some officers
    on foot, but most of the foot patrols are pretty localized
    around the buildings.
        Senator Campbell. And do you do some traffic stops? For
    instance, I know and I think the chairman knows, too, every
    time you step across the street to the Russell Building you are
    taking your life in your own hands, because in this town yellow
    means go like the blazes, not slow down, as you probably know.
        Well, if there is a policeman standing there at the corner,
    he is authorized, I assume, to do a traffic stop, is he not, if
    there is some running of lights or some routine violations?
        Mr. Abrecht. Yes, foot men can stop a car to the extent
    that he can do so on foot.
        Senator Campbell. How does a foot man stop a car if he does
    not want to stop?
        Mr. Abrecht. We use the patrol cars primarily.
        Senator Campbell. The policemen I see out on the corner
    sometimes, they are on foot, most of them. Once in a while
    there will be a motorcycle parked there, sometimes a bicycle.
    But most of the time they are on foot when they are directing
    traffic.
        Mr. Abrecht. That is correct.
        Senator Campbell. If a car is going to run the lights, it
    would seem to me pretty unlikely they are going to stop. I
    mean, what do you do, run down the street and yell at them?
        Mr. Abrecht. The officer directing traffic should not leave
    his post.
        Senator Campbell. Which means they are just going to keep
    on going. You could not go after them if you wanted to
    generally.
        Mr. Abrecht. Generally speaking.

                                FLEET EXPANSION

        Senator Campbell. Let me go on. Last year we had $103,000
    in existing funds put in the budget, as I remember, to expand
    that fleet. What happened to that $103,000?
        Mr. Abrecht. That is this current fiscal year. There is no
    money allocated for this purpose. We were allowed to expend
    from the security enhancement fund, it is my understanding, up
    to $103,000 for that purpose. We have not done so as of now. As
    I say, we have just identified this potential vehicle.
    Obviously, if you have some other ones that might work that
    would be even better so we have a choice to go from.
        We do hope to purchase some motorcycles this fiscal year.

                                  MOTORCYCLES

        Senator Campbell. Let us talk about motorcycles again. Can
    you tell me what, or the committee, what types of stops can a
    policeman on a motorcycle do when he has no lights or siren?
    And those little things you are using, I do not think they
    develop enough power to fully equip----
        Mr. Abrecht. That is clearly not their primary purpose.
        Senator Campbell. The choice you have, you can have all the
    equipment on them and it will not run, or you can run without
    any ability to be able to make a traffic stop. So what kind of
    stops can they make?
        Mr. Abrecht. We do not encourage the officers on the small
    motorcycles to make traffic stops. That is not their primary
    purpose. Their primary purpose is to patrol in the garages, in
    the parks, for deterrence of crime and for visibility and that
    sort of thing.
        We do have a fairly substantial marked fleet of cars and
    the three large motorcycles, which do do traffic enforcement.
    Obviously, there is a balance as to what our activities are. I
    am fairly comfortable that we are doing quite a lot of traffic
    enforcement, about as much as we need to do for the situation
    up here, and that the primary purpose of our force is to
    protect the Congress and the Capitol against things like
    terrorism. So I really do look for them to be out there
    observing, watching for criminal kinds of things.
        Senator Campbell. It has been my observation that whenever
    an incoming head of state visits the Capitol we always call the
    Park Service to escort. Is that correct?
        Mr. Abrecht. No, we do not call the Park Service.
        Senator Campbell. You do not call the Park Service.
        Mr. Abrecht. Heads of state are protected by the Secret
    Service. They bring the motorcade to the Capitol. We typically
    put a vehicle in front and a vehicle in the rear as they hit
    the Capitol grounds, bring them onto the grounds. Or often we
    will meet them at their last rendezvous location if they are
    coming from the White House or the State Department.
        Senator Campbell. Meaning an automobile you put in the
    front?
        Mr. Abrecht. An automobile or a motorcycle--we use both.
        Senator Campbell. Well, do not put those little things.
        Mr. Abrecht. No, we would not use them. We would use the
    Harley-Davidsons for that.
        Senator Campbell. I would not want those foreign
    dignitaries laughing at us, frankly.
        Mr. Abrecht. Most of the escorts we do are to Andrews for
    CODEL's, outgoing CODEL's.
        Senator Campbell. The ones that you are using are the
    three, I guess it was, that we got in 1994.
        Mr. Abrecht. That is correct.
        Senator Campbell. Which ought to have about 50,000 miles on
    them by now and ought to probably be turned in.
        Mr. Abrecht. I do not know what mileage they have on them.
    One of the problems we have in our fleet in general is we have
    life cycle replacement problems with our fleet. Funding has not
    kept up with the aging of the vehicles.
        Senator Campbell. If I might add, that fleet you have got,
    we call them throw-away motorcycles. You cannot get 10 cents
    out of those things when they are done. That is the advantage
    of the American ones. They cost more, but the return you get
    when you resell them.
        Mr. Abrecht. That is true.
        Senator Campbell. American-made, as you probably know,
    Chief, American-made police motorcycles, they sell 3 years
    later for almost the price you pay for them brand new.
        Mr. Abrecht. That is correct.
        Senator Campbell. Those things are just I mean literally up
    for grabs by collectors and people on the street, because they
    know they have been maintained and they know they are American
    made, I guess, because they always hold their value. You do not
    have to throw them away.

                                SAFETY UPGRADES

        Maybe just one last question, Mr. Chairman. That is, as I
    remember we did appropriate an additional $106 million last
    year for safety upgrades that you mentioned. Did the majority
    of that go to the 215 additional hires that Mr. Livingood
    talked about?
        Mr. Abrecht. No, about a quarter of it did. About a quarter
    of it went for what is known as task one in the security
    enhancement plan, which is manpower, additional officers.
        Senator Campbell. What percent went to rolling equipment,
    do you know?
        Mr. Abrecht. None of it went to--no, that is not true.
    There were about eight additional vehicles, I believe is my
    recollection, in the security enhancement fund, primarily
    specialized type vehicles.
        Senator Campbell. Emergency equipment, that type of stuff,
    rather than just squad cars?
        Mr. Abrecht. Six of them were for K-9 vehicles because the
    size of the K-9 force has been increased. Those have not yet
    been purchased. Then there were vehicles for transporting anti-
    chemical and biological warfare equipment and a specialized
    vehicle for the technical security unit to do more work in
    terms of preventing explosives, things of that nature.
        They are special purpose vehicles rather than routine
    patrol vehicles, except for the K-9 vehicles, which are routine
    patrol type vehicles.
        Senator Campbell. Well, thank you for that, Chief.
        Thank you for letting me sit in, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    tell you that I am not going to let go of this thing, but I am
    going to rag it until we get rid of those pieces of junk
    because I think they are an eyesore for the millions of people
    that come to our Capitol. This place is supposed to be the
    capital of the free world, not just this country, and that
    means, it seems to me, that not only functional use but
    appearance is important, too.
        We have millions of visitors from all over this world come
    here. I do not want our police laughed at, it is as simple as
    that.
        So hopefully we will get it in the budget to buy American-
    made equipment, just as we do cars, motorcycles too. If we do
    not, I am going to be back here every year until we do, Mr.
    Chairman. And I thank you for letting me sit in.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Your tenacity is well
    known and I think appropriately noted here. We appreciate
    Senator Campbell's calling this to our attention last year and
    his demonstrated follow-up by being here this year.
        One of the buzz items around the Capitol has to do with the
    television program that ran on Channel 9, the story about the
    lack of progress in implementing the $106 million worth of
    security upgrades that was funded. I do not always believe
    everything I read in the papers or everything I see on the
    television, but, being a politician, I have to respond because
    my constituents pay attention to what they read in the paper
    and what they see on television, and I think the constituents
    of the Police Board do the same.
        So I raise that and ask if anyone would like to make a
    statement about the Channel 9 story. I am sure I do not need to
    explain what Channel 9 ran. I am sure you are all very familiar
    with it. So does someone wish to?
        Mr. Abrecht. I guess I will.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, Chief.
        Mr. Abrecht. There were a number of tasks in the security
    enhancement plan. The one that drew the most attention was the
    hiring of the 260 additional members of the department, of
    which 215 were to be sworn positions. We have actually made
    great progress on that. The problem, of course, is that from
    the moment you start hiring police officers until they are
    actually deployed in the field takes a tremendous amount of
    time, as Senator Campbell well knows. Training for police
    officers begins with 6 months just of classroom training. We
    tack on 6 weeks beyond that of field training to make sure that
    the officers are fully familiar with the Capitol complex.
        We are on schedule for hiring those 215 sworn positions. By
    the end of this fiscal year they will all be on board. They
    will not all be deployed even then because a substantial number
    of them will still be in training as they work their way
    through the pipeline.
        We have deployed 64 so far, who are actually out supporting
    the mission. There was also substantial funding in that portion
    of the security enhancement plan for overtime, which we have
    been using to try and get a visible presence out there, an
    additional presence in the field in the interim as we bring the
    new officers on board. So the program in that area is well
    along.

                         PHYSICAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS

        The other larger amounts in the security enhancement fund
    are for physical security improvements, and many of those are
    moving along. They are all on schedule and they are moving
    along right along the schedule and time lines that have been
    provided to the committee.
        A lot of these things are quite complex and require a lot
    of design and development before they are actually installed.
    That design is on schedule and within the next few months you
    are going to start seeing considerably more actual installed
    base that will make it very clear to everybody that the program
    is in fact producing the results that are anticipated.
        Perhaps one of the other areas I could just mention is the
    equipment for the officers. Another task, I believe it was task
    7, provides for new bulletproof vests for the officers and new
    firearms. Those are also well along. Over 700 officers now have
    the new vests; 400 have transitioned to the new weapon. So we
    are well along, although obviously we have not completed it
    yet, as it was anticipated it would take 2 fiscal years.
        The funding was for 2 fiscal years for personnel, but for 5
    or 6 years in fact for physical security improvements, and many
    of those--as we know, building anything takes an awful lot of
    time and planning to make sure it is done right, particularly
    in this monumental environment around here. The Architect
    demands, correctly so, that we not damage the majestic
    environment here, that when we run things we do it with a great
    deal of care, and we have to coordinate with him to make sure
    that none of the monumental parts of the buildings are damaged
    by the work we are doing.
        Senator Bennett. Anyone else want to make a comment about
    the Channel 9 story?
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, the Chief I think has laid it out
    very well. As we all know, sensationalism sells, and there is a
    lot of sensationalism in that. It frankly did not reflect the
    facts, nor was it a very realistic understanding of what it
    takes to turn a battleship or turn an aircraft carrier.
        I think there have been things that we could have done more
    quickly possibly. We could have spent maybe less time
    evaluating the vest. But the fact is that we gave our officers
    an opportunity to experiment with all the vests that were
    available out there and they picked one that they thought was
    the best. From that, they are quite happy with the new vest.
        The new gun had to be evaluated in ways that, for example,
    you do not have in a different environment. We have folks
    carrying guns in the Capitol and accuracy and the kind of
    bullets that you can use and things like that are quite
    important. So we had what we think is a very scientific and
    thorough analysis of which gun to use, and those have been
    selected and are being deployed.
        As the Chief pointed out, the vest will be fully deployed
    by the end of this month. We have new X-ray machines, new
    magnetometers, things that people do not notice, but they are
    by far more sensitive; a number of other things, locking
    devices that will be put up on the doors, are being deployed
    now.
        We are doing our best to hire as many qualified officers as
    we can, and there is competition all over, but we are getting
    the best and the brightest. It does take a long time to train
    these folks.
        But all that said, Mr. Chairman, I think it is also
    important to note that the staffing studies that were done with
    regard to security in the Capitol recommended 776, I think was
    the number, additional new officers to be hired. The Congress
    authorized 215; 215 when fully deployed, assuming that we have
    also replaced any officers that we lose on the basis of
    attrition, still will not get us to the point where we can
    fully staff every entrance point with two officers. We still
    will have to use excess overtime to do that.
        That is why our budget request--I am probably getting ahead
    of myself--our budget request this year is asking for 100
    additional officers, which will get us up to a complement that
    will allow us to have two officers on every door by the time
    that they are fully hired and deployed, and I think that is in
    2002 best case.
        I personally, Mr. Chairman, have a very active interest in
    this issue. I do believe that any situation where you have one
    officer on an entry point to a building is like having somebody
    there as a sitting duck because you do not have any backup. I
    think that is a high priority issue.
        So I think the Bruce Johnson piece was distorted and unfair
    in many respects, but sensationalism sells.
        Senator Bennett. Mr. Livingood.
        Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to back up
    and agree with what Mr. Ziglar said, and that, particularly in
    the security enhancement plan, it has been a little slow
    because we had to install and design infrastructure, meaning
    electricity, to certain spots. There is cable installation and
    an awful lot of things that you do not see immediate results. I
    think we are on track and moving ahead now, but there are quite
    a few things that we have accomplished.

                                    MANPOWER

        I'd like to just reiterate what Jim said, and particularly
    the manpower situation. I come from an agency prior to this
    life, another life, the Secret Service, where we looked at this
    very carefully all the time, the number of people on posts and
    on assignments. I feel very strongly that we are inadequately
    staffed to man some of these posts and some of the doors, our
    first line of defense.
        We do not have the fence that the White House has. We do
    not have that luxury. Our first line of defense is right there
    at the door, and one person cannot do it, as Jim said, and we
    need more assistance for the officers and for the Capitol
    itself and the House and Senate buildings at these locations.
        That is why our request is more than in the past, and we
    look for support for that area.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one?
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Senator Campbell. When you get the full complement of the
    additional officers that you need, what will be the total
    complement? What will be the total number for the Capitol
    Police Department?
        Mr. Abrecht. About 1,500 sworn.
        Mr. Ziglar. Are you talking about with the additional 100
    that we are asking for today?
        Senator Campbell. Right.
        Mr. Ziglar. Assuming we got those?
        Senator Campbell. Plus the ones that we have already
    authorized, what would it be? 1,500 sworn? When you have that
    many more manpower, do you also need support paraphernalia,
    bigger dressing rooms? I do not know.
        Mr. Abrecht. Yes.
        Senator Campbell. Things that go along with just simply
    more bodies.
        Mr. Abrecht. Absolutely, and the security enhancement plan
    provides that.
        Senator Campbell. It is factored into the security
    enhancement?
        Mr. Abrecht. Improving locker rooms. Indeed, we intended to
    use some of the personnel--remember I said there are 215 sworn.
    There are also 45 civilians in that 260, and that is because we
    well understand that our administrative infrastructure in the
    department is quite fragile. We have sought to use some of
    those positions to improve our financial management, improve
    our human resources in particular, in order to support the men
    and women who are out there doing the baseline job.
        The Senate side has been very supportive of that initiative
    and has approved the authorization of those positions and we
    are still in considerable debate with the House committees to
    get them to authorize those positions, which are really holding
    up the development of our infrastructure unfortunately.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, could I comment on what the Chief
    has just said?
        Senator Bennett. Surely.
        Mr. Ziglar. We would greatly appreciate anything that any
    of you folks on the committee could do to prompt the House to
    release some of these positions on the administrative side. As
    you know, I am a businessman by background and my focus
    primarily has been at the police department on the management,
    financial management, human resources, and the technology side.
    And we have some difficult problems over there in terms of the
    management structure and the ability to do the job that is
    necessary.
        We are being hampered by the House's refusal to release
    some very critical spots in order to do that. I have actually
    deployed a number of people from the Senate Sergeant at Arms
    operation to help with that. I have out of my executive staff,
    I have two people that do nothing now but work on police issues
    over there helping them. I do not mind doing that, but at some
    point that does not make sense. You cannot bootstrap this.
        So anything that you can do to urge the House to help us I
    think would not only avoid embarrassing mistakes in a business
    context, but also would do a great deal for the morale of the
    police officers on the beat, who do not see the services that
    they deserve to have in the human resources context or
    reimbursement, payroll context that we all know in the business
    world are things that you pay attention to when you have
    employees.
        Senator Campbell. The chairman will just go over and tell
    them.
        Mr. Ziglar. Will you?
        Senator Campbell. The chairman will.
        Mr. Ziglar. I will tell you what, Senator. We will give you
    a Harley and you ride over.
        Senator Campbell. With that, I better go to my next
    appointment, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Mr. Livingood, do you want to respond?
        Mr. Livingood. It started way back even before the increase
    in the size of the Capitol Police. They needed assistance in
    the infrastructure, particularly in the financial management
    area and some in the human resources, as well as the
    information technology. And we have been working toward that
    end for some time, with the strategic plan and the study by the
    Booz Allen audit firm which really brought this to light even
    more so, particularly with the increase in the size of the
    Capitol Police.
        We submitted it to committees and it is being discussed by
    the committees, and we are working with them. But we need the
    people. We need more people and we need experienced,
    experienced people, and some training in security areas.
        Senator Bennett. Well, historically this committee, this
    subcommittee, has been more generous than the House
    subcommittee on all aspects of legislative branch
    appropriations, and I suppose we will be again.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and
    appreciate the information you have provided to us. If we have
    any further questions, we will be in touch with you in writing.
        Mr. Livingood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. And again, Chief Abrecht, thank
    you very much for your work.
        Mr. Abrecht. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Board for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

                     PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE MOTORCYCLES

        Question. Please provide the Committee with a copy of the recently
    completed report on the options available for the purchase of American-
    made motorcycles.
        Answer. The Department is continuing its effort to identify an
    American made motorcycle that meets its criteria for patrolling parks,
    garages and open spaces within the Capitol complex. A final report has
    not been completed, as the Department is awaiting the opportunity to
    test and evaluate at least one domestically manufactured motorcycle
    that potentially meets its specifications. Additionally, the Department
    is contacting sixty motorcycle manufacturers and dealerships identified
    in consultation with staff. The results of this initiative will be
    incorporated into a final report for Committee review.
                        perimeter security improvements
        Question. The Committee recently received a report on the status of
    the Capitol Square perimeter security improvements project which
    indicated the construction documents would be completed in May, with
    construction completed in 3 years. The perimeter security improvements
    for the Senate office buildings was approved a year earlier than the
    Capitol Square project. What is the status of that project?
        Answer. The Request for Proposals for the Senate Perimeter Security
    project were sent out the first week in February 2000. A pre-proposal
    site visit and walk through with potential contractors occurred on
    February 16th. Proposals are to be delivered and opened March 9th,
    2000. The proposals will then be evaluated, and after negotiations, an
    award will be made. Assuming that no significant complications arise
    during the evaluation or negotiation process, an award is scheduled to
    be made in mid-April 2000.
        Construction should begin on site at the first intersection (New
    Jersey and C Street, N.W.) about mid-May, pending the receipt of the
    necessary documentation, including bonds, and continue through the four
    phases of the project. There is scheduled 365 day duration for the
    work. The $2.9 million preliminary estimate on this project has been
    slightly revised in the final estimate from RTKL to $3,125,000. We
    anticipate being able to award the work by using bidding options
    available in our contract documents during the contract negotiation
    process.

                               TRAINING FACILITY

        Question. The Police have recently completed their master
    facilities plan and their strategic plan and seem to have a clearer
    picture of their needs now and into the future. I understand that you
    were looking at the possibility of partnering with the State Department
    for a training facility in Indian Head, MD. Could you explain what has
    come of that proposal?
        Answer. The Department continues its collaborative effort with the
    State Department to locate a site conducive to satisfying the training
    needs of both agencies in addition to the needs of the Library of
    Congress, Supreme Court and GPO police forces. Discussion continues
    with representatives from the Indian Head Naval Warfare Center,
    although it appears the site originally considered by the Board for the
    joint training facility is no longer available. Other areas within the
    Indian Head installation are being examined, as are areas at the
    Anacostia Naval Air Station and Quantico, Virginia.

                  LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE

        Question. Please provide status of security and maintenance for the
    LOC.
        Answer. Consistent with Public Law 105-277, the Capitol Police
    Board 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
    equipment for the LOC. The Capitol Police serve in an advisory capacity
    for the LOC as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    between the USCP, LOC and AOC. As such, the LOC coordinates with the
    USCP Physical Security Division (PSD) to maintain continuity and
    consistency of security system design, procurement, installation and
    operation. The installation and maintenance of security equipment for
    the LOC is still the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. I
    have included a copy of the MOU for the record.
        Question. How does this relate overall to security on the Capitol
    grounds.
        Answer. The support that the Capitol Police provides to the LOC
    ensures that the equipment and systems purchased for the perimeter
    security at the Library of Congress is compatible with the equipment
    purchased for the Capitol complex. It will also allow for the future
    interoperability of physical security systems at the LOC and with the
    physical security systems of the Capitol complex.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

          CAPITOL POLICE REVIEW OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

        Question. Booz-Allen conducted a management review of selected
    administrative procedures of the Capitol Police a little over a year
    ago. They identified several areas of deficiency in the administration
    and operation of the Capitol Police Board. Would you update the
    committee on the status of the Board's improvement plan which stemmed
    from that deficiency report? Are there any critical functions of the
    department which still have not been satisfactorily addressed?
        Answer. Booz-Allen made three overarching recommendations:
        1. The USCP should reorganize and establish a new position of
    Assistant Chief of Police for Administration.
      --All infrastructure support functions have been consolidated under
            the Deputy Chief of Police for Administrative Services to
            ensure a fully integrated administrative infrastructure to
            support the core mission.
        2. The USCP should develop a strategic plan for infrastructure
    support.
      --The USCP has developed and implemented an overall strategic plan
            that incorporates the necessary strategic elements for
            infrastructure support functions.
        3. The infrastructure support organizations of the USCP should
    develop and execute a plan for reviewing, documenting, and distributing
    policies and procedures for all support activities.
      --A complete overhaul of the Department's system of directives and
            manuals will be accomplished in conjunction with the execution
            of the strategic plan, including those of the infrastructure
            support organizations reviewed by Booz-Allen.
        Booz-Allen also made a total of 26 detailed recommendations in the
    areas of financial management, human resources management, and
    information technology management.
      --Each of those recommendations was addressed in the Department's
            overall strategic plan. In particular, we are prioritizing our
            attention on the need for improved financial management through
            systems and personnel. We are on-track with the planned
            migration of our accounting systems to the GAO and plan to be
            operational at the outset of fiscal year 2001. As you are
            aware, the antiquated system currently in use has been
            unreliable and labor intensive and has led to significant
            failures in our ability to manage funds. In addition, we are in
            need of the five positions for financial management that were
            identified in our staffing proposal for the Security
            Enhancement Plan.
      --The overall strategic plan includes an implementation schedule that
            assigns responsibility for completion of tasks, completion
            dates, and review frequencies.
      --With the exception of tasks related to the hiring of infrastructure
            support personnel, tasks outlined in the plan are on schedule
            and will be completed on or before January 1, 2002.
      --Those tasks related to the hiring of infrastructure support
            personnel were scheduled to begin on November 1, 1999, and be
            completed by April 30, 2000. Work on these tasks will begin as
            soon as the relevant positions have been released and will be
            completed within the six-month time frame originally scheduled.

                       ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE POSITION

        Question. Last year, you talked about creating a position for an
    Assistant Chief of Police for Administration, with a strong managerial
    background in order to bring more efficiency to the administrative
    functions for the organization. Has that been done?
        Answer. The administrative functions of the department have been
    consolidated under a Deputy Chief for Administration. This has enhanced
    the Department's ability to communicate more effectively with the
    operational units and has fostered efficiency among the administrative
    units. Additionally, the department is currently creating a separate
    budget office from the Financial Management Division which will allow
    more attention to areas that have been understaffed in prior years.

                            ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL

        Question. Do you feel that the current number of administrative
    personnel is sufficient to meet the demand of providing support for an
    increased police force?
        Answer. No, there is an urgent need to fill critical administrative
    positions. For nearly a year, the department has been operating without
    the 14 administrative positions that were requested in the staffing
    proposal for the 260 positions authorized in the Omnibus supplemental
    in 1999. We continue to work with the oversight committees in the House
    of Representatives to gain approval to fill these positions.

                             ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

        Question. Last year's Booz-Allen study described the administrative
    support of the department as ``fragile'' and unlikely to be able to
    adequately support services in the future without changes in strategy.
    Has this ``change in strategy'' happened?
        Answer. As previously cited, the ``overarching'' recommendations of
    the Booz-Allen report called for a strategic plan, policies and
    procedures, identification of skill sets, and improved automated
    systems. Along with the organizational changes, each of these
    recommendations has been addressed in the Department's strategic plan
    with milestones and time tables for completion.

                              FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Question. The Booz-Allen report was also critical of the financial
    management aspects of the department, noting that they did not possess
    or have access to an efficient and effective financial management
    system. This has caused serious problems with being able to effectively
    manage and control funds. There continues to be concern expressed by
    members of the rank-and-file. What has been done in the past year to
    improve the situation with your financial management?
        Answer. The Department has been planning for several years to
    migrate its accounting system to the GAO through a cross-servicing
    agreement. The Booz-Allen recommendation endorsed this approach. During
    the past year, preliminary testing was completed and a cross-servicing
    agreement with the General Accounting Office established. A migration
    team comprised of personnel from both agencies has been working toward
    a completion date of October 1, 2000. This effort has been slowed
    somewhat by the lack of additional personnel as well as the impact of
    the workload created by the omnibus supplemental appropriation of $106
    million.

                                TRAINING PROGRAM

        Question. Some of the department's sworn personnel have recently
    expressed frustration with the slow process of your training program.
    We realize that part of the problem with that is the lack of adequate
    training facilities, and we hope something can be done to address that
    problem in the near future. But, I would like to know that steps the
    Board has taken itself to pursue temporary alternatives, such as the
    use of independent contractors to provide training at outside
    facilities, or collaborative efforts with other federal agencies who
    have similar training needs. Would you share with the committee some of
    your ideas for addressing the department's training needs?
        Answer. Frustration with the slow process of the Department's
    training program most likely refers to the on-going 40 hour in-service
    training program which includes, as a major component, firearms
    transition training to the new .40 caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol.
    While more than a third of the Department has completed the
    transitional firearms program, inadequate firearms range space has
    contributed to the slow process, as Department personnel must utilize
    the small, eight point in-door range in the Rayburn House Office
    Building. The Capitol Police have taken steps to expedite this program
    by running two shifts of training per week and expect to complete the
    program by the end of this year. We would note that officers who have
    completed the training program have been enthusiastic in their praise
    of its content, delivery and rigor.
        The Board has diligently pursued alternative firearms range sites
    that would permit the Capitol Police to expedite its transitional
    training program. For the past ten months, the Board has collaborated
    with the State Department to locate a site conducive to satisfying the
    training needs (including firearms training) of both agencies in
    addition to the needs of the Library of Congress, Supreme Court and GPO
    police forces. Earlier attempts by the Board to secure firearms ranges
    at Fort Meade for Department use were unsuccessful. Most recently, the
    Board initiated discussions with the Marine Corps to determine costs
    associated with utilizing outdoor pistol and rifle ranges at Quantico.
        The long term solution to the Department's training facility needs
    has been comprehensively described in the United States Capitol Police
    Master Plan which was forwarded to the Committee for its review this
    past December. The ideal site for a training facility would be land
    owned by the federal government within a reasonable distance to the
    Capitol that provided sufficient space to build firearms ranges,
    academic classrooms and practical exercise areas that could be shared
    by a number of local federal law enforcement agencies. To this end, the
    Board has visited several military installations in the metropolitan
    area to determine the feasibility of developing a multi-agency training
    facility.

                               BIOHAZARD TRAINING

        Question. Does the department offer in-service training for such
    things as bio-hazard situations?
        Answer. The Department trains all of their personnel in bio-hazards
    in the Advanced Law Enforcement Response Training-1 (ALERT-1) program.
    This is an eight hour block of instruction on weapons of mass
    destruction to include biological weapons. The designated response
    teams receive a 40 hour block of instruction entitled ALERT-2. This
    course provides more detail in the bio-hazard area to include
    detection, protection, and decontamination.
        The Department also has a Blood-Borne Pathogen Exposure Control
    Plan which involves a one hour block of instruction provided on a
    yearly basis.

                              NEW POLICE PERSONNEL

        Question. Last year, Congress provided funding to hire the first
    increment of about 260 new police personnel. I understand that you have
    not yet reached that number of new hires, but you anticipate to meet
    that goal by the end of the current fiscal year. Are you experiencing
    difficulty in your recruitment efforts?
        Answer. To date, 167 officers have been hired. The current status
    of hiring is not inconsistent with our original expectations. As
    indicated in our original staffing proposal, there is an approximate
    six month training ``pipeline'' associated with each recruit class that
    is scheduled through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
    (FLETC). The FLETC conducts training for all federal law enforcement
    agencies, and as such, is limited in the number of classes that can be
    offered. We feel that we have been able to recruit at a rapid pace
    without lowering any of the standards that have been in place.

                         STAFFING AT BUILDING ENTRANCES

        Question. There have been complaints about the lack of staffing at
    the building entrances; although I understand that recent efforts have
    addressed this problem to some extent. Is the staffing situation such
    that it becomes difficult to post two officers at these building
    entrances?
        Answer. We have requested an additional 100 FTE's for fiscal year
    2001 which will enable the Department to post a minimum of two officers
    at each of the access points to the Congressional Complex. Currently,
    the Department is not funded to staff two officers at every access
    point.

                                   NEW HIRES

        Question. How many of the total number of new-hires in the last
    year have been sworn officers (non-management personnel) and how many
    have been administrative support personnel?
        Answer. Sworn--167 officers have been hired.
        Civilian:
      --10 civilians have been hired.
      --Of the 10 hired--9 are currently deployed and 1 has separated.
      --17 civilian positions are in various stages of selection.
      --18 civilian positions are on hold pending committee authorization.
        Question. Of the new hires, how many do you estimate were hired as
    a result of new positions and how many were a result of other personnel
    retiring (attrition replacements)?
        Answer. The make-up of hires to the sworn ranks in fiscal year 1999
    was as follows: (1) two recruit officer classes (totaling 47 hires)
    were held in October 1998 and December 1998 to fill vacancies due to
    attrition during 1998, (2) the remaining three recruit officer classes
    held in fiscal year 1999 (March, May, and August, totaling 120 hires)
    were in support of hiring goals under the Security Enhancement Plan.
        There are two recruit officer classes scheduled in fiscal year 2000
    which will again begin to fill vacancies due to attrition that occurred
    during 1999 and 2000.

                          ADDITIONAL POLICE PERSONNEL

        Question. How many additional police personnel do you think will be
    needed after you have fully staffed to that 260 target number which we
    provided funding for last year? Have you done a needs assessment for
    the out years?
        Answer. We have requested 100 additional FTE's for police officers
    in fiscal year 2001. This will allow the Department to staff each
    access point to the complex with a minimum of two officers at all
    times. The 1995 and 1998 security surveys and the 1998 Booz-Allen,
    Hamilton study identified the requisite staffing profiles. Consistent
    with the last two fiscal year requests, we will identify our out-year
    needs based on those surveys and contemporary developments and make the
    appropriate FTE requests, as necessary, in lots of no more than 100
    FTE's per year.

                               LACK OF EQUIPMENT

        Question. Some of the rank and file have also expressed concern
    that the department is ill-equipped to appropriately perform its
    mission. There have been complaints that there are insufficient numbers
    of radios, protective vests, and other items issued to police
    personnel. Can you address this issue?
        Answer.
        Glock .40 caliber
      --432 officers have been issued the Glock 22 .40 caliber pistol.
      --All sworn members will have been qualified and issued the new
            weapon by December 2000.
        Soft body armor
      --940 members have been issued and are wearing the new soft body
            armor.
      --Another 87 vests have been delivered and are in the process of
            being issued.
      --The balance of 188 vests have been returned to the manufacturer for
            re-fitting and will be issued in the very near future.
        Radios
      --The Department's inventory of portable radios was re-distributed
            last year to provide each on-duty officer a radio during normal
            (non-special event) operating conditions. A radio assessment
            panel comprised of members selected by the USCP Labor Committee
            and USCP management will begin field testing a new portable
            radio the first week in April to determine its suitability for
            Department use. Should this radio meet the Department's needs,
            a sufficient number of units will be purchased to ensure every
            officer and security aide is personally issued a radio.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, PH.D., LIBRARIAN OF
                CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
            DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
            TERESA SMITH, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES
            MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
            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
            LINDA WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES
            HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
            KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
            FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE
                BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
            JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
            KATHY A. WILLIAMS, BUDGET OFFICER

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Bennett. Our next panel is the Library of Congress.
    We welcome Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and
    his Deputy, General Scott, and also Dan Mulhollan, who is the
    Director of the Congressional Research Service.
        The Library has requested a total of $461.7 million of
    appropriated funds. The total Library budget, including funds
    for building maintenance, is $622.4 million, which is a 10
    percent increase over the fiscal 2000 budget.
        Dr. Billington, we will start with you and then perhaps Mr.
    Mulhollan, unless you want to defer any of your testimony to
    General Scott, from whom we are always glad to hear.
        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me
    present the one new face among our witnesses, Teresa Smith, our
    new Director of Human Resources Services.
        In this our bicentennial year, Mr. Chairman, our first
    pleasant task is to thank you, thank the subcommittee, and to
    thank Congresses past and present for being over the years the
    greatest single library patron of all time. No royal house, no
    Medici, have ever created or sustained anything that can match
    America's oldest Federal cultural institution and to match the
    constancy with which the Congress has enabled it to become the
    largest repository of knowledge and creativity ever created on
    this planet and to become in more recent times the leading
    provider of high quality free educational material in this
    revolutionary new world of the Internet.
        The Library brings before the Congress this year a budget
    derived from a vision and strategy to secure the infrastructure
    and put in place the personnel to perform the truly unique
    services that it can and must provide for the Congress and the
    Nation in this information age.

                            NATIONAL DIGITAL LIBRARY

        Thanks to the Congress, the Library has built a platform
    for leadership in this new digital world. Our pioneering 5-year
    National Digital Library Program has been stunningly
    successful. Just a few weeks ago, it was awarded the
    prestigious Global Information Infrastructure Award for
    Education, the last in a long series of recognitions that it
    has received. We have now developed over the past year a
    Digital Futures plan that will systematically begin building a
    new kind of 21st century library for all Americans, the
    National Online Library.
        Now, as we all know, the Internet is creating a profound
    shift in the way knowledge is stored and communicated.
    Projections now suggest that by the year 2003, 80 percent of
    all business transactions will be conducted over the Internet,
    to which nearly 100 million Americans are already connected.
    Further worldwide exponential growth seems inevitable.
        This new communications medium offers the Congress' library
    extraordinary opportunities to provide new and cost effective
    benefits to 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, and most of them have direct
    Internet access into the classroom.
        Demand continues to grow nationwide for the kind of high
    quality, interesting, and even inspirational primary materials
    of our history and culture that the Library of Congress web
    site alone provides free of charge through the Internet. By
    making it free, the Library helps sustain the whole tradition
    of open access to knowledge in the electronic age and it helps
    bridge the information gap between the have's and have-not's by
    providing not only a free but dependable vehicle for improving
    K through 12 education in America.
        The Library also has an immediate national responsibility
    to do what is being done nowhere else, namely to develop
    rapidly plans and pilots for preserving and making accessible
    to the Congress the rising flood tide of digitized materials
    that are created elsewhere only in digital form, so-called
    ``born digital.'' These materials are presently available only
    in highly impermanent electronic formats.

                         DIGITAL FUTURES BUDGET REQUEST

        The main new request in our fiscal year 2001 budget is for
    an increase of $21.3 million to systematically incorporate
    digital materials into the Library's historic and enduring
    mission, which is to acquire and preserve useful content, to
    provide free access to it for Congress and the public, and to
    sustain the backbone of infrastructure that makes access to
    content possible.
        We need, in short, $11 million for the backbone of an
    electronic service that exploded from 20,000 transactions a day
    on our American Memory site in 1995, just 5 years ago, to 4
    million a day for our expanded and diversified web site in the
    year 2000. $7.6 million is for additional domestic and
    international content and $2.6 million is for outreach services
    that will maximize access and impact nationally.
        We realize this represents a significant increase, but the
    Library has already severely strained its human and material
    infrastructure during this explosive expansion of the past
    decade to test and determine these needs. Content, access, and
    infrastructure, moreover, are interrelated. They are the core
    needs of any library. They must be met for this new type of
    material if the Library is to provide relevant service in the
    years ahead.
        There is little point having content without access and no
    possibility of sustaining either without backbone, and there is
    no realistic possibility, Mr. Chairman, that we can continue
    even our present level of services, let alone realize the
    extraordinary added service potential of this Library, by
    further diverting resources from our traditional services based
    on books, periodicals, and other artifactual materials, whose
    volume also continues to rise globally.
        This Nation's library, Mr. Chairman, cannot be permitted to
    drift into being either just a vast ``museum of the book'', a
    vast museum of past knowledge on the one hand, or on the other
    a mere electronic switchboard for providing current
    information. This institution has the world's best staff of
    knowledge navigators and it has a unique capacity for
    leadership in mixing in the world's largest collection of
    traditional material with an expanding electronic network in
    ways that will advance both the creativity and the practical
    wisdom that will keep our legislature and our democracy
    dynamic.
        Libraries in general--and you are celebrating them all in
    this bicentennial year, not merely the Library of Congress--are
    a link in the human chain that connects yesterday's memories
    and today's experience with tomorrow's future possibilities,
    with the prospects of a better tomorrow. That is the American
    dream, that whatever the problems of today, tomorrow can always
    be better than yesterday, if we do not forget the lessons of
    yesterday and if we are able to digest the flood of information
    that we are receiving daily.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        So I ask the committee's support in order for the Congress'
    library to have the material and human resources to sustain its
    leadership role in the digital age and to modernize its
    services to the Congress and the Nation as we enter our third
    century.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington

        On April 24, 2000, the Library will be 200 years old. It is the
    oldest Federal cultural institution in the United States and the
    largest and most inclusive library in human history. In pursuit of its
    mission to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and
    the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection
    of knowledge and creativity, the Library has amassed an unparalleled
    collection of 119 million items, a superbly knowledgeable staff, and
    cost-effective networks for gathering in the world's knowledge for the
    nation's good.
        As we enter the third millennium and the Library's third century,
    we ask the Congress to support the Library's leadership role in
    delivering free electronic information to the nation. Building on the
    overwhelming success of the Library's five-year pioneering National
    Digital Library Program, we have developed an overall strategy for the
    Library's electronic future and an appropriate budget request for
    fiscal 2001. With Congressional support, our goal is to begin building
    a new kind of 21st century library for all Americans--the National On-
    line Library.
        The Internet is creating a profound, fundamental shift in the way
    people communicate. An estimated 100 million Americans now use the
    Internet, which is producing dramatic alterations in the workplace and
    in daily life. The extent of these changes far outpaces our
    understanding of their implications. However, it is already clear that
    the new communications era offers this unique institution extraordinary
    opportunities to achieve new levels of cost-effective service for the
    Congress's legislative work and for citizens in every congressional
    district.
        The Library is now a proven and dependable Internet site for
    primary source material on the Congress and on American history as well
    as for cataloging, copyright information, and much more. Our web site
    now receives an average of four million electronic transactions every
    working day.
        The Library is the 1999 winner of the Global Information
    Infrastructure Award for Education for the primary source materials we
    provide about our American heritage. Our award-winning site
    demonstrates how the Library's services will be increasingly made
    available to serve national needs in the future. An estimated 90
    percent of K-12 public schools are now connected to the Internet, with
    most schools having direct access in the classroom. The tidal wave of
    Internet growth coincides with a growing and increasingly insatiable
    demand for access to high-quality primary materials of real educational
    value. Congress's library is the world leader in providing such
    material--and is almost alone in providing quality content both free of
    charge and with authoritative explanatory material. Congressional
    vision and support have uniquely positioned its Library to make a major
    contribution through the Internet towards the nation's educational
    development and future productivity.
        Fiscal year 2001 will be the critical one for permanently putting
    into place the people and support systems required to secure the
    Library's digital leadership role for the nation. The Library is now
    ready to build on the experience of the last five years to begin
    transforming traditional library services in ways that will meet
    America's new information needs by building a National On-Line Library.
        We ask the Congress to support these essential elements required to
    sustain our future:
      --Digital Futures Initiative.--Create a National On-line Library by
            providing permanent funding for the Library's innovative
            National Digital Library Program (NDLP), that is currently due
            to expire in fiscal 2000. By funding the lean and
            extraordinarily talented staff of the NDLP, the Congress will
            permit the Library both to begin capturing and preserving
            materials that exist only in digital form (i.e., ``born
            digital'') and to continue the conversion of unique educational
            content that will include important international as well as
            national materials;
      --Succession Planning.--Extend our staff succession program to
            include the Law Library in addition to the Congressional
            Research Service (for a third year) and Library Services (for a
            second year). This is essential to ensure the continuity and
            quality of core services at a time when unprecedented numbers
            of staff will be retiring;
      --Security of Staff and Collections.--Permanently fund both the
            police positions authorized by a fiscal year 1999 emergency
            supplemental appropriation and item-level tracking and
            inventory collections security controls now made possible
            through the new Library of Congress Integrated Library System
            (LCILS); and
      --Preservation and Storage of Collections.--Permanently fund a mass
            deacidification program and the full operation for the first
            off-site storage module at Fort Meade, Maryland.
        The Library's budget request for fiscal year 2001--$428.1 million
    in net appropriations and $33.6 million in authority to use receipts--
    supports the Library's mission to make its resources available and
    useful in the 21st century. This is a net increase of 11.4 percent over
    fiscal 2000. A major part of this increase ($16.6 million) is needed to
    fund mandatory pay raises (driven largely by the January 2001 pay raise
    of 3.7 percent) and unavoidable price-level increases; $27.1 million is
    needed to meet critical, growing workload increases (net of program
    decreases). The Library is requesting an increase of 192 full-time
    equivalent (FTE) positions--from 4,076 to 4,268 FTEs. Even with this
    increase, the Library's FTEs would still be fewer by 281 FTEs or 6.2
    percent lower than in fiscal year 1992 (see attachment 1). The Library
    has been doing more with less since 1992, but the tidal wave of
    Internet activity now imposes a level of workload that requires the
    Library to rebuild a portion of its workforce that has been reduced or
    funded privately since 1992.
        The Library will use its Bicentennial in the year 2000 more to
    leave a legacy for the future than to celebrate our past. We invite the
    Congress and the nation to join with us in celebrating our 200th
    birthday, which is being done largely with private funds. At the start
    of our third century, we ask the Congress to support the increase in
    resources required to meet the new mission-driven workloads brought on
    by the Internet age.
        Funding our fiscal 2001 budget request will enable the Library to
    sustain its basic, traditional services while comprehensively
    addressing its inescapable, digital future. We hope the Congress will
    continue its historic and fruitful investment in the Library as it
    enters its third century of serving the nation's legislators and their
    constituents.

                         THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TODAY

        The core of the Library is its incomparable collections--and the
    specialists who interpret and share them. The Library's 119 million
    items include almost all languages and media through which knowledge
    and creativity are preserved and communicated.
        The Library has more than 27 million items in its print
    collections, including 5,700 volumes printed before the year 1500; 12
    million photographs; 4 million maps, 2 million audio recordings;
    800,000 motion pictures, including the earliest movies ever made; 4
    million pieces of music; 53 million pages of personal papers and
    manuscripts, including those of 23 Presidents of the United States as
    well as hundreds of thousands of scientific and government documents.
        New treasures are added each year. Notable acquisitions during
    fiscal year 1999 include: Harry Blackmun Papers and Ruth Bader Ginsberg
    Papers--more than 600,000 new items of these Supreme Court Justices;
    Marian Carson Collection--10,000 papers and documents relating to the
    early history of the U.S.; Bronislava Nijinska Collection--multi-medial
    collection of the noted ballet choreographer; Carte de Canada et des
    Etats Unis de l'Amerique--the first map (1778) to recognize the
    independence of the U.S.; Persian Manuscript Celestial Globe--ca. 1650;
    The First American Haggadah--published in New York City, 1837; 337
    issues of the important Revolutionary American newspaper Claypoole's
    Daily Advertiser, 1791-1793; the extraordinary J. Arthur Wood, Jr.
    Collection of Cartoon and Caricature--40,000 works by more than 3,000
    artists; Victor Hammer Archives--the works of one of the great hand-
    press printers, print makers, and type designers of the 20th century;
    and Politica by Aristotle (Cologne, 1492)--the earliest printed version
    of Aristotle's work to become available in the West.
        Every workday, the Library's staff adds more than 10,000 new items
    to the collections after organizing and cataloging them and finds ways
    to share them with the Congress and the nation--by providing on-line
    access across the nation, by assisting users in the Library's reading
    rooms, and by featuring the Library's collections in cultural programs.
        Major annual services include delivering more than 550,000
    congressional research responses and services, processing more than
    600,000 copyright claims, and circulating more than 22 million audio
    and braille books and magazines free to blind and physically
    handicapped individuals all across America. We annually catalog more
    than 250,000 books and serials and provide the bibliographic record
    inexpensively to the Nation's libraries, saving them an estimated $268
    million annually.
        The Library also provides free on-line access, via the Internet, to
    its automated information files, which contain more than 75 million
    records--to Congressional offices, Federal agencies, libraries, and the
    public. Internet-based systems include major world-wide-web (www)
    services (e.g, Legislative Information System, THOMAS, LC-web, Global
    Legal Information Network), the Library of Congress On-line Public
    Access Catalog (catalog.loc.gov), and various file transfer options.
        The Library of Congress programs and activities are funded by four
    salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriations which support congressional
    services, national library services, copyright administration, library
    services to blind and physically handicapped people, and management
    support. A separate appropriation funds furniture and furnishings.

             DIGITAL FUTURES INITIATIVE (NATIONAL ON-LINE LIBRARY)

        The Library of Congress is committed to bringing America's story--
    in all its variety--to everyone, whether at work, in their homes, in
    schools, or in libraries. We realize that the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request of $21.3 million for our digital futures initiative represents
    a significant increase in resources. However, the need for a bump-up in
    our appropriations has emerged inescapably from our extended internal
    review of the Library's digital future needs to support additional
    domestic and international digital content ($7,590,392), to implement
    the critical technology backbone ($11,049,182), and to enhance the
    educational outreach access services begun by the NDLP ($2,644,205).
        We must make permanent the National Digital Library/American Memory
    effort by assuring that the priceless technical know-how and
    substantive knowledge acquired by the staff and now embedded in this
    program are retained and deployed for the National On-Line Library of
    the future. Fiscal year 2000 marks the end of the initial five-year
    digitization program at the Library, which was funded by both public
    and private funds. As the Library now moves to build and sustain a core
    set of on-line services for the nation, the NDLP's technically skilled
    staff has to be funded on a permanent basis. If we are not able to
    retain these talented--and, by now, uniquely experienced--people, we
    will simply not be able to continue servicing the new national
    constituency we have built. Indeed, without this cadre of
    professionals, the Library will not be able to begin the long overdue
    work of capturing and making usable for the Congress materials created
    by others that are now increasingly available only in electronic form.
        The Library must tackle the unprecedented challenges posed by ever-
    changing digital content embedded in rapidly changing technologies. The
    Library has been deeply studying the complex problem of preserving and
    accessing digital materials. But unless the Library can retain the
    professionals that it has already uniquely trained, there is little
    chance that the Library will be able to find and hire the people needed
    to deal with this problem for many years to come. The Library simply
    must have the people and the resources to build a state-of-the-art
    software, hardware and telecommunications technology backbone able to
    support and make accessible the electronic materials that Congress and
    the nation will want in the future.
        Finally, for the new millennium, the Library has a unique
    opportunity to become a global leader in digital information: the hub
    of an international network to advance education and understanding.
    Following the Congress' lead in establishing in the Library a ``Meeting
    of the Frontiers'' project with Russia, we have taken the first steps
    to create a global on-line library, using the Library's international
    materials to provide stunning digital images of America's dynamic
    interaction with the world. The Library is exploring partnerships with
    the world's great archives beginning with Spain.

                               COMPUTER SECURITY

        The Library's on-line services represent a critical infrastructure
    asset, which is vital to the operations of the Legislative Branch and
    the nation. But, the new age of Internet opportunities also brings with
    it the vulnerabilities of the Library's automated systems to intrusion
    and destruction. The Library's fiscal year 2001 budget requests
    $660,690 and five FTEs to support our computer and network security
    programs. The President has developed a National Plan for Information
    Systems Protection, which calls for a major effort to improve computer
    security. The Library also recognizes the urgent need to address this
    vulnerability by implementing its plan and requests approval of the
    resources to ensure the protection of our information assets.

                               SUCCESSION PROGRAM

        The Library's ability to serve Congress and the nation depends in
    large part on its expert staff, particularly those who perform
    legislative analysis, have intimate familiarity with the special
    collections, or have fluency in foreign languages. The Library's fiscal
    year 2001 budget requests an increase of $2,568,882 and 34 FTEs to
    support a three-part succession program: (1) $1,033,788 and 28 FTEs to
    support the hiring of Library Services technicians to provide for the
    timely upward mobility of the most qualified technical staff into a few
    of the key professional positions, which are being vacated by
    retirements; (2) $1,130,772 to support the hiring of additional CRS
    analysts to ensure the continuity of in-depth analysis to support
    legislative deliberations; and (3) $404,322 and 6 FTEs to support the
    hiring of additional foreign legal specialists to ensure the continuity
    of congressional services in foreign law provided by the Law Library.
        Library Services's analysis of its vulnerability to retirements,
    particularly in those areas requiring extensive familiarity with
    special collections and fluency in foreign languages, indicates that 27
    percent (555) of Library Services staff is already eligible to retire
    during fiscal year 2000, and that number will increase to 52 percent
    (1,088) by fiscal year 2005.
        We are grateful that the Congress funded half of Library Services'
    request as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget, but the situation
    outlined in last year's budget has grown even more critical. The
    retirement rate in fiscal year 1999 increased 19 percent over fiscal
    year 1998, and we fear a similar increase this year. To respond to this
    critical need, the Library requests $1,033,788 to keep this five-year
    program on track. If we cannot move expeditiously in these few
    specially-targeted areas, senior staff are likely to retire without
    being able to impart their specialized subject and language skills to
    the next generation.
        The Congressional Research Service also faces serious challenges to
    ensure its capacity to continue, without interruption, its legislative
    support of Members and committees on all public policy issues. Half of
    CRS' staff will be eligible to retire by 2006. Since 1996, CRS has used
    a risk assessment process in order to identify specific subject areas
    where staff were likely to retire in the next few years. Based on this
    assessment, CRS projects reduced analytic capacity in a significant
    number of subject areas as early as calendar year 2000. These losses
    will accelerate and, by 2004, will affect almost every area of
    legislative support to the Congress. Rebuilding this capacity requires
    a multi-year transition period during which new staff develop the
    breadth and depth of knowledge of specific issues and master the
    legislative process.
        CRS has developed a three-phase plan to begin hiring replacement
    staff using the Graduate Recruit Program, the Law Recruit Program and
    the Presidential Management Intern Program. In fiscal year 1999, the
    Congress appropriated $435,858 to support hiring of ten staff. In
    fiscal year 2000, an additional $559,052 was initially provided to
    support the hiring of another ten staff, but because of the across-the-
    board spending cut, this amount was reduced to $288,325, which supports
    the hiring of five additional staff. In fiscal year 2001, the Library
    is requesting $1,130,772 to hire the third phase of the program and to
    restore the positions lost in the fiscal year 2000 rescission. With
    this funding, CRS will be able to continue to provide uninterrupted
    policy analysis to the Congress.
        Finally, the Law Library estimates that 59 percent of its foreign
    law specialists will be eligible to retire by fiscal year 2004. The
    recruiting and training of foreign legal research specialists with both
    unique language skills and foreign legal expertise require a lengthy
    time period. To ensure the continuity of congressional services in many
    foreign jurisdictions of interest to the Congress, such as Arabic-
    speaking nations, China and Taiwan, and Japan, the Law Library is
    requesting $404,322 and six FTEs to hire and train foreign law
    specialists.

             SECURITY OF LIBRARY STAFF, COLLECTIONS AND FACILITIES

        During 1998, the Congress approved supplemental appropriations
    totaling $16,975,000 for the Library's physical security. The law
    included funding for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to increase the
    Library's police staffing. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests
    permanent funding of $2,530,886 to sustain the increased police
    staffing originally approved two years ago, which is essential to
    protect the Library's staff, collections, and facilities.
        The supplemental provided funding for physical security, but the
    supplemental did not provide funding for collections security. For the
    fiscal year 2001 budget, the Library is requesting an increase of
    $4,449,718 to improve bibliographic and inventory collections security
    controls, which have been identified as a significant deficiency by
    auditors and security consultants. Key elements of this major request
    include tracking books at the item level from the point of receipt
    through various processing steps to the Library's secure storage areas;
    conducting a physical inventory of the Library's 18 million book
    collection; and converting card files contained in the Law, Music,
    Geography and Map, and Rare Book reading rooms into automated format
    accessible through the Library of Congress Integrated Library System
    (LCILS). The LCILS provides an excellent tool to capture, for the first
    time, item-level information for much of the Library's collections, as
    well as to flag problems such as the non-receipt of expected serials.
    Establishing item-level inventory control, a fundamental part of the
    Library's approved security plan, has now been made possible with the
    implementation of the LCILS.
        Congress approved funding for the LCILS with the understanding that
    the Library would develop a detailed cost-savings plan, ``return''
    those accrued savings to the Congress, and request new authority to use
    any savings realized from the LCILS. Accordingly, the Library is
    incorporating $1,991,842 (a cumulative savings of $2,530,000) of LCILS-
    related savings in this fiscal year 2001 budget. At the same time, we
    are requesting new funds for the important collections security
    requirements outlined above, which the LCILS--for the first time--makes
    feasible for the Library to undertake. When these security initiatives
    are implemented, the Library will be better able to answer with
    assurance the key questions, ``What do you own?'' and ``Where is it?''
    and to both identify and obtain missing serials before they go out of
    print or become extremely expensive to purchase. The Library requests
    that the Congress re-invest LCILS-related savings into collections
    security to better secure the Library's priceless collections.

                  PRESERVATION AND STORAGE OF THE COLLECTIONS

        A primary mission of the Library is to preserve its vast and
    largely irreplaceable collections for the benefit of the Congress and
    the American public. A priority of the Library's preservation efforts
    is deacidification of a significant portion of materials printed on
    paper with high-acid content since the middle of the 19th century. The
    Library has in place a successful mass deacidification program using
    the Bookkeeper process, which has been supported using no-year funding
    since 1997.
        The Congress has been a stalwart supporter over the years of the
    Library's program to develop an effective, inexpensive method of
    solving one of the most pressing problems libraries have faced in the
    late 20th century: deacidifying the paper used since the mid-19th
    century for books, periodicals, maps, manuscripts, and other paper-
    based collections. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests an increase of
    $1,215,801 to make mass deacidification a permanent part of the
    Library's preservation program. The Library estimates that 5.3 million
    existing books (out of the entire classified book collection of 18
    million items) and that an annual addition of 100,000 books are printed
    on acidic paper.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes to establish an
    overall 30-year (one generation) plan to deacidify older books as well
    as the new, acidic acquisitions. The plan scales up to $5.7 million by
    fiscal year 2005 to fund the capacity to deacidify annually 300,000
    books and 1,000,000 manuscript sheets.
        Equally critical for preserving the Library's collections is
    providing environmentally safe storage. The Library continues to work
    closely with the AOC and their contractors to ensure that the first
    storage module at the Fort Meade, Maryland campus meets the necessary
    environmental requirements to house and preserve the transferred
    collections and that materials handling will be as efficient as
    possible. The Library is very pleased that later this year, we will be
    able to begin using the space at Fort Meade made available by the
    Congress for storage of Library collections. The module will house 2.2
    million items of paper-based material, primarily books, shelved on
    wide-span shelving by size in containers.
        As overcrowding in collections storage areas on Capitol Hill
    becomes more serious each day, speedy completion and occupancy of the
    first module at Fort Meade is a high priority. To fund an accelerated
    transfer program enabling the Library to secure, track and move 4,000
    items daily for a period of two-and-a-half years, the Library's fiscal
    year 2001 budget requests an increase of $824,648 and 22 FTEs. In
    addition, the Library is requesting $707,265 and 12 FTEs to fund start-
    up costs for Module Two. Because most of the materials to be
    transferred to this second module come from the Library's unique,
    special ``gold'' collection areas, substantial advance work is required
    to place these heritage assets in containers that meet the highest
    preservation and security standards. The Library has developed a cost-
    effective ``handle it once'' approach for this activity and requests
    funding in fiscal year 2001 so that the collections can be made ready
    for prompt transfer to Module Two immediately upon its completion.
        Finally, the Library's fiscal year 2001 budget requests an increase
    of $501,160 and 12 FTEs to fund the shifting of collections on Capitol
    Hill, which will be made possible by the transfer of materials to the
    Fort Meade storage. At the present time, more than 50,000 items are
    stacked on the floors of Capitol Hill storage areas. A three-year
    program to shift all of the collections remaining on Capitol Hill is
    needed to relieve overcrowding in many areas and improve the storage
    conditions. Although the Library was able to open splendid new reading
    rooms for the foreign-language collections when the Thomas Jefferson
    Building renovation was completed in 1997, it was neither fiscally nor
    logistically possible to move the collections served through the Asian
    and African/Middle Eastern reading rooms from the John Adams Building
    at that time. The completion of Fort Meade Module One will enable the
    Library to initiate a 3-year project to improve the preservation and
    security of these valuable Capitol Hill collections and to resolve
    long-standing reader complaints about slow service.

                                  LAW LIBRARY

        The Law Library of Congress maintains the largest collection of
    legal materials in the world and also houses a unique body of lawyers
    trained in foreign legal systems to supply legal research and analysis,
    primarily for the Congress, on the laws of other nations, international
    law, and comparative law. More than 200 jurisdictions are covered by
    Law Library specialists, some 80 percent of the sovereign entities of
    the world that issue laws and regulations. The Law Library utilizes
    this talent to maintain and develop the breadth and depth of a
    demanding collection, as well as to provide reference services whenever
    either chamber is in session (as mandated by the Congress). These are
    daunting responsibilities. The U.S. Courts, the executive branch, and
    the legal community also depend heavily on the Law Library's
    collections and the unique expertise of its foreign legal staff.
        The Law Library has been creative in attempting to meet its
    responsibilities, particularly with the development of its Global Legal
    Information Network, but funding for nine FTEs ($503,124) is crucially
    required. The funding would ensure adequate staffing for research and
    reference services, improve the processing of incoming legal materials
    and retrieval services, and improve administrative capabilities.

                                COPYRIGHT OFFICE

        The Library's Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective
    copyright protection--annually processing approximately 620,000 claims
    (representing more than 900,000 works transferred to the Library) of
    which more than 590,000 claims are registered for copyright. The Office
    also records approximately 16,500 documents with more than 200,000
    titles and responds annually to more than 436,000 requests for
    information.
        The Copyright Office increased statutory fees for registration and
    recordation services on July 1, 1999. (The basic filing fee for
    registering a claim increased from $20 to $30.) I am pleased to report
    that the Copyright Office is forecasting that fiscal year 2000 receipts
    will meet the budgeted level of $20.8 million and is projecting a
    slight increase to $21 million for the fiscal year 2001 budget. As more
    experience is gained under the new fee schedule, the Library will
    advise the Committee of any changes in our projections.
        The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ``DMCA,'' enacted at the end
    of the 105th Congress, gave the Copyright Office many new duties and
    responsibilities. The Register has elaborated on these legislative
    changes in her statement before this Committee. One major change is a
    new type of protection for the original designs of the hulls of boats.
    Registration is required and there are complicated cancellation
    procedures. The Copyright Office, following the adoption of new
    regulations and practices and a new registration form, made the first
    such registration in July 1999.
        On November 29, 1999, the Copyright law was amended to extend the
    compulsory license for retransmission of network and superstation
    signals by satellite carriers for another five years, and the royalty
    rates were significantly reduced. The Copyright Office is in the
    process of implementing this new law. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request includes an increase of $150,000 to enable the Office to meet
    better its compulsory licensing responsibilities.
        As part of the Library's digital futures initiative, the Copyright
    Office is requesting an increase of $80,135 for one additional FTE to
    continue work on CORDS, including activities related to a joint digital
    repository project. A coordinated effort between the Copyright Office
    and the Library's digital program is critical for the protection of
    copyright owners and for access by Library users.

       NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

        The Library administers a free national library program of braille
    and recorded materials for blind and physically handicapped persons,
    through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
    Handicapped (NLS). Under a special provision of the U.S. copyright law
    and with the permission of authors and publishers of works not covered
    by the provision, NLS selects and produces full-length books and
    magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette. Reading
    materials are distributed to a cooperating network of regional and
    subregional (local, non-Federal) libraries where they are circulated to
    eligible borrowers. Reading materials and playback machines are sent to
    borrowers and returned to libraries by postage-free mail. Established
    by an act of Congress in 1931 to serve blind adults, the program was
    expanded in 1952 to include children, in 1962 to provide music
    materials, and again in 1966 to include individuals with other physical
    impairments that prevent the reading of standard print.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget maintains program services by funding
    mandatory pay and price level increases totaling $1,181,339. The budget
    also supports the exploration of alternative digital technological
    possibilities that would provide a less costly, more efficient,
    internationally acceptable, user-friendly delivery system. Funding the
    fiscal year 2001 increase is necessary to ensure that all eligible
    individuals are provided appropriate reading materials.

                         LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

        The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
    structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
    buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC has
    requested a capital budget of $9,590,000, an increase of $4,959,000.
    The AOC capital budget includes funding totaling $5,835,000 in
    appropriations for four projects that were requested by the Library.
    The AOC deferred one Library-requested project, air conditioning
    improvements costing $350,000, until fiscal year 2002.
        The largest Library-requested project, amounting to $5 million, is
    for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper,
    Virginia. The Congress approved the initial matching appropriated share
    for the Center in fiscal year 2000, and the fiscal year 2001 request
    would continue to build towards the Federal share of $16.5 million (25
    percent) for renovating and equipping the facility. The owner of the
    facility, the Packard Humanities Institute, has now with extraordinary
    generosity offered to provide up-front funding to facilitate timely
    completion of the entire project, with the understanding that the
    government will pay up to $16.5 million (25 percent of the projected
    $66 million cost) at the time the property is transferred to the AOC.
    We have informed both our authorizing and appropriations committees
    about this offer, which will accelerate dramatically the completion of
    this much-needed facility. To achieve the public portion of this match
    in a timely manner, the Library is requesting $5 million for fiscal
    year 2001. The other three Library-requested projects support the
    preservation of the Library's collections and space modifications in
    the James Madison Building. Library-requested projects, as well as AOC
    identified projects, are prioritized based on critical need and in
    accordance with both the Library's Strategic and Security plans.
        I urge the Committee to support the Architect's Library Buildings
    and Grounds budget, which is critical to the Library's mission.
        During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Library will continue its
    participation in planning for the proposed Capitol Visitor Center.
    Since 1991, the Library has worked with Members of Congress and the
    Architect of the Capitol as an integral part of the Visitor Center. The
    Library offers unique resources for contributing to the mission of the
    Visitor Center through facilities that will permit both sharing the
    Library's incomparably rich collection of recorded performances in the
    performing arts and displaying the primary materials of American
    history in the Library's collections. The Library has emphasized to the
    members of the Capitol Preservation Commission the importance of that
    part of the Visitor Center design plan that includes the construction
    of a tunnel connecting the Center to the Thomas Jefferson building,
    thereby permitting all-weather direct access for the Congress to the
    Members' Room, for the Congressional staff to the Library's resources,
    and for the public to the exhibitions and public spaces in the building
    so beautifully restored by the Congress.

            JAMES MADISON BUILDING WORKSTATION MODERNIZATION PROJECT

        The Library is requesting an increase of $433,500 to complete its
    accelerated workstation modernization project in the James Madison
    Building by 2004. In fiscal year 2000, the Congress approved $878,040
    for this replacement program. Improving workstation design reduces the
    risk of injuries and increases staff productivity. An increase in
    funding would complete the project by 2004 instead of 2006, which the
    current level of resources would permit.

                              PROPOSED LEGISLATION

        The 105th Congress approved a revolving fund to improve the
    accountability and statutory authority for the Cooperative Acquisitions
    Program. We are seeking similar authority during the 106th Congress to
    modernize the business operation and enhance Congressional oversight of
    the Library's other cost-recovery services. Our draft legislation also
    enhances the continuity of the Library's Trust Fund Board and
    modernizes an archaic statute governing our Cataloging Distribution
    Service. This legislative proposal, which we are working on through the
    Library's oversight committees, is our top legislative priority for the
    106th Congress. Passage of this legislation would cap our long-term
    efforts to put the Library's financial operations on firm footing.
        The Library is also seeking an amendment to the statute authorizing
    the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia (2
    U.S.C. 141 note) which would allow a limited exception to the act's
    reimbursement prohibition. This would allow us to take advantage of an
    unprecedentedly generous private funding offer and permit us to
    complete the project a full three years earlier than now scheduled with
    a savings of $6.5 million.
        In its first session, the 106th Congress enacted legislation
    directing the Library to oversee the publication of a chronological,
    illustrated history of the House of Representatives. We have begun the
    process of establishing an advisory board and consulting with
    publishers. We will be working with the Committee on House
    Administration and are pleased to be integrally involved in this
    worthwhile project.

                           THE LIBRARY'S BICENTENNIAL

        We have crafted--largely with privately raised funds--a multi-
    faceted Bicentennial program ``to inspire creativity in the years ahead
    by stimulating greater use of the Library of Congress and libraries
    everywhere.'' A centerpiece is our ``Local Legacies'' project to
    document unique local traditions from congressional districts
    throughout the nation for possible inclusion in the American Folklife
    Center's collections and in the National On-Line Library. Other
    Bicentennial projects include: reconstituting Thomas Jefferson's
    original library through private donations; a ``Favorite Poem'' project
    spearheaded by the Library's Poet Laureate; and a national photography
    contest, ``Beyond Words: Celebrating America's Libraries,'' jointly
    conducted with the American Library Association. The program also
    includes a commemorative stamp, commemorative coins, exhibitions,
    publications, symposia, and Bicentennial-related activities at
    libraries nationwide.
        The Bicentennial theme of Libraries-Creativity-Liberty was
    reflected in our first two Bicentennial exhibitions, The Work of
    Charles and Ray Eames: A Legacy of Invention (American creativity) and
    John Bull and Uncle Sam: Four Centuries of British-American Relations
    (materials from the Library of Congress and British Library). The first
    of our major Bicentennial symposia, Frontiers of the Mind in the
    Twenty-First Century, was held at the Library and cybercast nationally
    in June 1999.
        The concept of ``Gifts to the Nation'' is central to the
    Bicentennial effort. The Library itself is a Congressional ``Gift to
    the Nation.'' Sharing the Library's collections and information about
    the Congress with Americans in their local communities through an
    expanded National Digital Library is the Library's major gift to the
    nation.

                                    SUMMARY

        We ask the Congress to support the Library's--and America's--
    digital future, as well as its traditional services provided in
    Washington, D.C. The Library's digital responsibilities impose on us a
    new mission-critical workload, which we cannot fund by diverting
    resources from our equally critical traditional services of acquiring,
    cataloging, preserving, serving, and storing artifactual materials. Our
    traditional role will not diminish (indeed, print publishing is
    significantly increasing). The digital future will enable the Library
    to expand greatly our direct contribution to K-12 education and to the
    American public. Providing free, electronic access to knowledge and
    information for life-long learners everywhere is essential to the
    future of our democracy. Free, high-quality content from America's
    library is bridging the digital divide--the growing division in the
    U.S. between information ``haves'' and ``have-nots.''
        By funding the Library's fiscal year 2001 budget request, the
    Congress would make possible our digital future and support our
    traditional services--enabling the Library of Congress to continue in
    the new era ahead its dedicated service to the work of the Congress and
    to the creative life of the American people.

    Library of Congress total library appropriations-actual full-time
    equivalent (FTE) positions

                                                                Total actual
                                                                        FTEs

    Fiscal year:
        1992.......................................................... 4,549
        1993.......................................................... 4,492
        1994.......................................................... 4,163
        1995.......................................................... 4,180
        1996.......................................................... 4,114
        1997.......................................................... 4,010
        1998.......................................................... 3,958
        1999.......................................................\1\ 3,923
        2000.......................................................\2\ 4,076
        2001.......................................................\2\ 4,268

    \1\ Cumulative decrease of 626 actual FTEs or 14 percent from 1992 to
    1999.
    \2\ Budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ------

                     Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to present the budget request of the Copyright Office for
    fiscal year 2001. In the new millennium, the Office is pleased to
    provide leadership in the establishment of U.S. copyright policy and
    service to the nation in the digital age. To strengthen and improve our
    ability to serve the Congress and the copyright community, the Office
    will focus on several programs in fiscal year 2000, including a study
    to reengineer the registration and recordation processes.
        During the past year, the Copyright Office continued to advise the
    Congress on national and international issues and provided valuable
    assistance to the United States Trade Representative and other
    executive branch agencies. It also continued to create and maintain the
    on-line catalog of copyright and mask work registrations and recorded
    documents, to administer the various compulsory licenses and statutory
    obligations, to further the effort to create a workable automated
    registration, recordation and deposit system, and to offer technical,
    and educational assistance in the international arena.
        The Copyright Office's public services include, responding to
    copyright information and reference requests in person, over the
    telephone, through written correspondence, and electronically through
    the Web; producing and supplying Copyright Office regulations, studies,
    forms, informational circulars, and other publications in paper and
    digital formats; maintaining a 24-hour forms hotline and fax delivery
    service; providing up-to-date information digitally via the Copyright
    Office Website and through an electronic mailing list. The Website
    offers most of the information circulars provided by the Office and the
    ability to fill-in on line and down load application forms. The
    Copyright Website was accessed more than 1.9 million times during the
    year, almost a 100 percent increase over the prior year.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Office processed approximately 620,000
    claims, representing more than 900,000 works, registered more than
    590,000 of these claims, recorded 16,500 documents, that included more
    than 200,000 titles, and responded to 436,000 information requests. The
    Office transferred to the Library approximately 954,000 copies of works
    at a value of $36,435,428. The Office collected approximately
    $16,000,000 for registration, recordation and related services and
    approximately $214,000,000 in royalty fees for compulsory licenses.
    Fiscal Year 2000 Focus
        In fiscal year 2000, the Copyright Office will focus on four
    activities:
      --Maintain and enhance the policy role of the Copyright Office in
            domestic and international copyright matters;
      --Continue to develop, test, and implement the Copyright Office
            Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System
            (CORDS);
      --Improve the security of copyright deposits and records through the
            continued implementation of the Library's Security Plan and the
            Copyright Office's risk assessment recommendations, including
            the introduction of automated item-level tracking and
            electronic access controls; and
      --Continue to improve the efficiency and timeliness in registration
            and recordation processing, including the initiation of a
            business process reengineering study.

    Policy Role
        Although there was less legislative activity in the copyright
    sphere in 1999 than during the previous two years, the Copyright Office
    played a very active role assisting Congress in crafting one major
    piece of legislation extending and revising the Satellite Home Viewer
    Act. The legislation concerns the satellite compulsory license that the
    Office administers; it extends the license until December 31, 2004; it
    creates a starting framework to allow satellite carriers to provide
    local TV signals, and it reduces royalty fees.
        A major focus of the Copyright Office's legal efforts during fiscal
    1999 was completing tasks entrusted to us by Congress in the Digital
    Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. The DMCA requires the
    Copyright Office to conduct several studies on various subjects. The
    first study, due six months after the date the DMCA was enacted, was on
    copyright and digital distance education. At the urging of libraries
    and educational institutions, Congress addressed the issue of distance
    education during consideration of the DMCA. Since it was not possible
    at the time to reach a resolution that all of the affected parties
    could live with, further consideration of the issue was deferred until
    the Copyright Office had time to study the issue and report to
    Congress.
        The Office held three public hearings and received numerous written
    comments during the course of the study. The Office also engaged a
    consultant to report on the market for licensing in digital distance
    education. The Copyright Office report concludes that technological
    changes since the adoption of the current Copyright Act make it
    appropriate to revisit the existing exemption for distance education in
    section 110(2) in order to restore the policy balance that Congress had
    intended. Congress has held hearings on these recommendations, but no
    legislation has been introduced.
        In addition to the distance education study, the DMCA requires the
    Copyright Office to conduct a rulemaking on an exemption to 17 U.S.C.
    1201 that would permit circumvention of technological access control
    measures in order to engage in noninfringing uses of copyrighted works.
    The exception would apply only to categories of works as to which the
    Office, through this rulemaking procedure, determines that the ability
    of users to engage in noninfringing uses has been or is likely to be
    adversely affected by the use of technological access control measures.
        The rulemaking process was initially delayed by the inclusion of
    the phrase ``on the record'' in the statute, which appeared to imply
    that the Office would have to conduct a costly quasi-judicial
    proceeding presided over personally by the Librarian of Congress. After
    extensive discussions with the affected parties and the Congressional
    committees, a provision was included in the satellite legislation that
    removes the requirement that our rulemaking pursuant to 17 U.S.C. sec.
    1201(a)(1) be ``on the record.''
        The Office has since initiated the process of consulting with
    affected parties by publishing a Federal Register notice on November
    24, 1999 seeking a first round of public comments. The initial comments
    are now due on February 17, and reply comments are due on March 20. We
    plan to hold two public hearings, one in Washington, D.C. and one on
    the West Coast. We will make our recommendations to the Librarian, who
    will publish his findings by October 28, 2000.
        In the coming year, we anticipate that we will continue to assist
    Congress in legislative matters on such issues as protection of the
    investment in databases, restoration of remedies for intellectual
    property infringements by States, and extension of the cable compulsory
    license online service providers who wish to bring television
    programming through the Internet to these subscribers. We will also
    continue to advise executive branch agencies on international matters,
    including assuring that foreign countries live up to their obligations
    under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related
    Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, provide adequate and effective
    intellectual property protection to U.S. right holders and will fully
    participate in the World Intellectual Property Organization's norm
    setting activities, especially its effort to establish a new
    international treaty to protect the interests of performers of
    audiovisual works, e.g., screen and television actors.

    Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit
            System (CORDS)

        In fiscal year 2000, the Office will expand CORDS, the system that
    allows the submission of copyright claims and deposits electronically
    over the Internet. Building on the successful fiscal 1999
    implementation of the CORDS system-to-system submission and the
    processing of 10,000 doctoral dissertations and master's theses
    submitted by Bell and Howell Information and Learning Corporation
    (formerly UMI Co.), CORDS will be expanded during fiscal 2000 to test
    the receipt of claims and deposits from music publishers, coordinated
    centrally through the Harry Fox Agency, a subsidiary of the National
    Music Publishers Association. Other CORDS test partners will begin
    submitting copyright claims electronically through Mixed CORDS, with
    hard-copy deposits, resulting in time and efficiency gains for both the
    Mixed CORDS partners and the Copyright Office. CORDS is the only major
    objective that requires additional resources in fiscal year 2001. One
    GS-13 Computer Specialist is needed to continue work on the CORDS
    system.

    Registration and Recordation Operations

        The Copyright Office's goal is timely, efficient, and quality
    service. Throughput time is a major concern to the copyright community.
    Despite valiant efforts by supervisors and staff, registration time
    rose from the norm of six to eight weeks in 1993 to six to eight months
    today. Although we were able to shorten the throughput time by two
    weeks in 1999, this existing time frame is clearly unacceptable.
    Annually, we process approximately 620,000 claims to copyright covering
    more than 900,000 works and more than 1,000,000 deposit copies.
        Staff reductions due to retirements, resignations, and hiring
    inefficiencies have contributed to our inability to reduce the
    processing times. The Copyright Office has endeavored to compensate for
    staff reductions and other pressures in major processing divisions.
    Overtime has been focused on reducing backlogs on an as-needed basis in
    some areas, and regularly in the Examining Division.
        New workload arising from legislative initiatives included
    implementing a system for registration of vessel hull designs and
    recordation of Online Service Provider Agent, and Copyright Owner
    Notice to Libraries and Archives of Normal Commercial Exploitation or
    Availability at Reasonable Price. These new activities required the
    Office to develop new forms, fees, and work procedures using existing
    staff. In the case of vessel hull registration and Online Service
    Provider Designations of Agent, staff had to be assigned to ensure the
    rapid posting and indexing of information on the Copyright Office
    Website.
        The Office reorganized the Receiving & Processing Division's Mail
    Center operations to create a more logical and speedier workflow by
    transferring the metering functions into the Library of Congress's mail
    service, and shifting responsibility for handling correspondence
    functions into the Examining Division. Additional staff were added to
    the Receiving & Processing Division to perform new marking, tagging and
    tracking duties to enhance the security of materials.
        The Examining Division completed its work with labor organizations
    to create new standards for distribution and performance, continued to
    hold facilitative sessions with staff to improve practices and
    procedures, utilized cross-trained staff from other divisions,
    increased its use of fax and email correspondence with applicants,
    expanded its use of a streamlined correspondence system with frequent
    applicants, and cross-trained technicians to process uncomplicated
    claims. The division is hiring additional examiners with funds approved
    for this purpose in the fiscal 2000 budget, and has reorganized its
    training program to ensure that trainees contribute to production of
    claims earlier in their first year of employment.
        The Cataloging Division engaged in a significant effort to continue
    cross-training catalogers, further simplified copyright cataloging
    rules, completed and issued a training manual, and introduced
    improvements to automated cataloging programs to speed data entry. The
    implementation of CORDS mentioned above, has made possible the more
    rapid cataloging of claims received through this system.
        The unacceptable throughput time of more than six months for
    document recordation is being vigorously addressed. A contractor study
    has just been completed, and a plan for improving the process and
    implementing the recommendations is being prepared. This plan will
    include improvements to workflow, rewritten practices, revised
    procedures for correspondence, clearer instructions for use of the
    document cover sheet (a form which assists the Office in processing the
    document), and steps to update or replace some automated systems.
    Additionally, new supervisory staff assigned to the Documents
    Recordation Section in September, 1999, brought much needed leadership
    and vision.
        These various Copyright Office efforts have helped to hold the line
    against the lengthening of an already unacceptable cycle time for
    registration claims and documents. The near term requires filling
    vacant and newly approved positions in these crucial areas, which we
    are doing. However, to bring cycle time down to acceptable levels
    requires more fundamental change--a full-scale business process
    reengineering effort.

    Business Processing Reengineering (BPR)

        In fiscal 2000, the Copyright Office initiated plans to reengineer
    its business processes. Authors, other copyright owners, users of
    copyrighted works, copyright industries, libraries, and members of the
    public rely on our records relating to registered claims in copyrighted
    works and recorded documents concerning ownership of works. The value
    of the records is greatest when up-to-date information on new works is
    added to the record and is available to the public in a timely manner.
    This BPR initiative will result in improved overall service by the
    Office.
        This initiative will also complement the Library of Congress' major
    security effort with regard to its collections. The BPR effort will
    result in the reduction of lost materials by eliminating excessive
    movement and handling of materials that enter the Library through
    Copyright Office registration and mandatory deposit systems. It will
    also allow the Office to share data more effectively and to contain
    costs.
        Reengineering will accomplish the following objectives: Improve
    operations and service that will achieve better processing times,
    create timely public records optimum response time for requests from
    the public; enhance operational efficiency through use of new
    (alternative) technologies; contain costs of registration, recordation
    and other services; strengthen security within the Copyright Office;
    and more efficiently use staff and space.
        The Office has completed and submitted a Statement of Work for a
    BPR Study and Implementation Plan to the Library's Contracts &
    Logistics Office for issuance of a Request for a Quotation (RFQ). A
    position has been established and will soon be posted for a GS-15
    Project Manager (NTE 4 years) who, as an expert in Copyright Office
    procedures, will be the Contracting Officer Technical Representative
    (COTR) with the contractor and who will be responsible for working with
    Copyright Office managers, staff and labor organizations during the
    study and assist in the implementation of the agreed upon changes.
        For fiscal 2001, the Copyright Office must decrease its base by
    $400,000, which is the one time cost for the (BPR) study begun in
    fiscal 2000. During fiscal 2001, the Office will review the results of
    the study, and begin the first phase of the implementation plan in
    fiscal 2002. We anticipate that our fiscal 2003 budget request, will
    incorporate the final phase of the BPR initiative.

    Security Program

        The Library of Congress continued its major security effort with
    regard to its collections. The Copyright Office successfully completed
    all fiscal year 1999 scheduled action items identified in the multi-
    year risk assessment plan. Pending the permanent reconfiguration of the
    Mail Center, an interim reconfiguration was accomplished to facilitate
    several important security initiatives including laser ownership
    marking of non-print materials and applying security strips and bar
    code labels on book material. The bar codes will be an essential
    element of the item level tracking system now being developed. Initial
    purchases were made of security carts for transporting ``high-risk''
    materials through the processing stages. Additionally, a closed circuit
    video system was installed in the copyright records unit to improve
    security.
        I am please to report that the Office implemented in fiscal 1999, a
    more cost effective process to mark and tag copyright materials,
    resulting in a permanent savings of $420,000. On November 18, 1999, the
    Librarian of Congress on behalf of the Copyright Office submitted a
    reprogramming request to the respective House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees to reprogram the $420,000 in savings to fund an Item Level
    Tracking initiative for Copyright Office materials.

    Fee Increases

        At this time the Office forecasts $20,800,000 in fees for fiscal
    2000. This is consistent with the impact on receipts following the last
    fee increase, in January 1991 when receipts declined 7.5 percent. For
    the last two months of fiscal 1999, receipts declined nearly 9 percent
    from the previous year. For the first two months of fiscal 2000,
    receipts were nearly 10 percent lower. We expect that the fee increase
    will result in receipts approximately 10 percent lower than fiscal
    1998, followed by a slow recovery over several years. In addition,
    approximately 20 percent of claims still arrive with insufficient fees,
    creating an extra workload. However, most filers send the required
    additional fee when requested to do so.
        Based on current data and historical trends, the Office projects
    fee receipts of $21,000,000 in fiscal 2001. If receipts exceed this
    forecast, these fees will be transferred to the Copyright Office ``No
    Year'' account. These funds can be used in future years to offset
    increases in expenditures and/or potentially decrease the net
    appropriation.

    Summary

        In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Office seeks additional
    resources to continue its digital futures initiatives, specifically, to
    hire one additional GS-13 automation specialist. Fiscal 2001 will be an
    important year for the Copyright Office as it reviews the results of
    the BPR study and begins to implement the recommended changes in its
    registration and recordation processes.

        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Mr. Mulhollan.
        Mr. Mulhollan. We are grateful for the support the
    committee has given to CRS. Particularly, our request is to
    complete the increase, temporary increase of 30 FTE's for the
    succession initiative that has proven greatly successful. I
    have some examples for the record which I have mentioned in my
    written testimony of three excellent people brought in through
    our recruitment process and continuing.
        Also, the oversight and support this committee has given
    for the Y2K conversion has led to, among other things, success
    stories in managing the concern of CRS with regard to computer
    security.
        We are grateful for the committee's support and we thank
    you.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to
    appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2001 budget request
    for the Congressional Research Service. I first want to thank this
    Subcommittee for the support it has given to CRS in the past and to
    express my gratitude for the confidence you have shown in the Service
    and the close working relationship which you have made possible.
        My testimony presents the CRS budget request for your
    consideration, describes our continuing commitment to inform you and
    your colleagues in the discharge of your many responsibilities, and
    summarizes several changes and trends affecting the congressional
    environment and the ways in which CRS has dealt with these
    developments.

                               CRS BUDGET REQUEST

        The budget request I submit today contains only those funds
    necessary to maintain CRS services to the Congress, now and into the
    future. Our request for fiscal 2001 is $75,640,000, an increase of
    $4,666,727 over fiscal 2000. This requested increase has two
    objectives: (1) to sustain current services and cover the increased
    cost of our current staff and nonpersonals, and (2) to fund the third
    year of our three year succession plan for maintaining research
    capacity, preserving our institutional memory, and ensuring continuity
    of service over the next few years, as half of our staff become
    eligible to retire.
        We have made every effort to hold down costs and at the same time
    ensure continued congressional access to our expertise and high
    productivity. Our request for maintaining current services covers
    mandated increases in compensation, namely cost-of-living increases
    ($3,391,482) and price level increases in nonpersonals ($144,473).
        The second part of the request will help us ensure that we can
    maintain our research capacity and services to the Congress at a time
    when many of our most expert and experienced staff will retire. The
    funding requested, $1,130,772, will permit CRS to continue to hire
    entry level staff in anticipation of this large number of retirements.
    Let me assure you that we remain committed to working within our fiscal
    2000 budgeted full-time equivalents.

                           CRS: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY

        The beginning of a new century affords any organization a unique
    opportunity to re-examine its past and formulate its vision for the
    future. When one considers as well the current climate of increasingly
    rapid change in the congressional environment, those of us responsible
    for guiding CRS must devote a good portion of our energies to analyzing
    current and likely future changes affecting the Congress and adapting
    our work processes accordingly, so that the Service can continue
    providing effective support to you and your colleagues. Later in my
    testimony, I will touch briefly upon several recent trends which have
    significant implications for the work of Members and staff, as well as
    the various ways in which CRS has sought to adapt and respond
    proactively to these forces.
        Before proceeding further, however, I would like to introduce the
    second theme of my remarks today, namely, that in adapting to change we
    in CRS are always mindful of the need to preserve, that is, to leave
    unchanged, those principles that form the core of the mission
    established for us by the Congress at our creation in 1914, and
    reaffirmed in the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970.
        Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the tendency to conclude that new
    and often unsettling changes advances in technology, international
    terrorism, the growth of multi-national corporations, to name a few
    cannot be dealt with effectively by existing institutions and therefore
    require not merely adjustment, but fundamental changes in the way our
    government operates.
        In CRS, however, we remain committed to the view that the role of
    the Congress, as set forth in the Constitution and refined over more
    than 200 years of experience, is as viable and sound today as it was in
    1787. During its history, Congress has successfully coped with periods
    of dramatic change and uncertainty: the Civil War, two World Wars, the
    Great Depression of the 1930's, and the Cold War are notable examples.
    Many of Congress' constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities
    continue to be exercised in a manner that would be easily recognizable
    to the Framers, such as the use of the appropriations power, oversight,
    and as a last resort the impeachment process to provide a necessary
    check on the other Branches.
        Today, however, I would like to focus upon the attribute of
    Congress that is generally known as its informing function, the process
    by which Congress informs itself about the decisions it must make (as
    distinguished from the separate and more recent notion of the
    responsibility of Members to inform their constituents). I am focusing
    on one particular function of Congress because the belief that
    legislation can and should be based upon rational policy decisions, and
    that an informed legislature is therefore required, was the driving
    force responsible for the creation of CRS. Further, our central values
    and policies non-partisanship, balance, non-advocacy, and
    confidentiality all derive directly from our role in supporting the
    informing function.
        The historical power, and indeed the obligation, of Congress to
    inform itself, was eloquently formulated over seventy years ago by the
    Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty:

        ``A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
    absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation
    is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does
    not itself possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is
    true--recourse must be had to others who do possess it. * * * All this
    was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In
    that period the power of inquiry--with enforcing process--was regarded
    and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to
    legislate--indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample
    warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions
    which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to
    include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively
    exercised.'' (273 U.S. at 175.)

        Indeed, the courts have recognized that Congress' ability to inform
    itself is an essential component of the legislative process and is
    therefore entitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution's
    Speech or Debate Clause. Moreover, while the informing function is
    often associated with congressional oversight and investigatory powers,
    the courts have made it clear that the ``need for effective and
    informed lawmakers'' is not limited narrowly to its investigative
    activities, but rather ``Congress * * * must have the widest possible
    access to* * o * information if it is to perform its manifold
    responsibilities effectively'' (Murphy v. Department of the Army, 613
    F.2d 1155-56, 1158).
        The informing function was also further developed in legislative
    bodies at the State level. By the beginning of the twentieth century,
    the impetus of the Progressive movement had contributed to a broadening
    of the informing function to encompass the creation of legislative
    support agencies in a majority of the States. Eventually, this movement
    led to the establishment of a similar organization at the national
    level. The Legislative Reference Service (LRS) (renamed the
    Congressional Research Service in 1970), was formed by the Congress in
    1914 with the explicit mission of aiding Congress in carrying out its
    informing function. In the words of Senator Robert M. LaFollette, a
    principal architect of LRS, its creation represented ``an important and
    necessary step toward rendering the business of law making more
    efficient, more exact, economically sound and scientific.''
        When Congress first gave CRS a statutory charter in 1946, it
    reaffirmed the importance of the informing function by accepting the
    principle that LRS staff should serve as a pool of independent
    expertise available to the entire Congress. Again, when CRS' charter
    was revised and strengthened in the Legislative Reorganization Act of
    1970, Congress returned once more to our basic role as an efficient,
    objective source of information to support Members in the effective
    exercise of their legislative duties. In the words of the House Rules
    Committee Report on the 1970 Act, a non-partisan CRS, available as
    shared staff accessible to all Members, would:

        ``Insure the equal availability of information to both Houses of
    Congress; insulate the analytical phase of program review and policy
    analysis from political biases and therefore produce a more credible
    and objective product and more easily develop common frames of
    reference and analytical techniques that would make such analyses more
    useful and meaningful to all committees.''

        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the historical record
    described above demonstrates two things: first, that the Congress
    remains firmly committed to the value of objective, accurate
    information as a basis for legislation; and second, that CRS throughout
    its existence has played an important role in supporting the Congress'
    informing function.
        Our challenge, then, is to combine flexibility and innovation in
    response to changes in your environment with continuity in our
    adherence to the core principles which the Congress has established for
    us.

                    CHANGES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT

        To illustrate the manner in which we apply this approach in
    specific circumstances, let me discuss briefly several recent trends
    and developments which have altered the environment in which you and
    your colleagues work, and describe how CRS has responded to them,
    including the impact of recent court rulings on congressional
    authority, congressional turnover, and rapid changes in technology.

                  JUDICIAL LIMITATIONS ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER

        Jurisprudential trends in the last few years have had a significant
    impact on Congress' powers. All of these developments have not only
    created jurisprudential upheaval but have made it incumbent that
    Congress understand these newly imposed limitations on its lawmaking
    powers. Litigation is flourishing not only in the Supreme Court but in
    the lower federal courts challenging numerous federal laws on a variety
    of grounds. The development of legislative proposals must take these
    constitutional limitations into consideration as Congress fashions laws
    within the newly articulated boundaries set by the Court. The enhanced
    protections for the States also influence what legislative proposals
    are put forward and increase the vulnerability of legislative proposals
    to challenges based on these jurisprudential trends.
      --For the first time in over 50 years, the Supreme Court, in 1995,
            struck down a law--the Gun-Free School Zones Act--which was
            enacted on the basis of Congress' broad power to regulate
            interstate commerce. The Court held that the law exceeded
            Congress' commerce power and its holding has raised questions
            about Congress' ability to enact national legislative solutions
            to certain problems. A related series of cases has confined
            Congress' power under its authority to enforce the rights
            contained in the 14th Amendment, limiting what the Court saw as
            Congress' attempt to define new rights or redefine rights that
            were the subject of Court pronouncements. The trend to
            criminalize conduct hitherto the subject of state law and to
            create federal remedies for wrongs previously adjudicated on
            the state level has been most affected by the recent court
            cases and the issue continues to be played out in the Supreme
            Court.
      --A related development has been the Court's limitations on Congress
            enacting legislation that has the effect of utilizing state
            executive officials to implement federal law or forcing state
            legislatures to enact state legislative regimes pursuant to
            federal dictates. The Brady Handgun Control Act, partially
            invalidated by the Court in 1997, is an example of this trend,
            in which the Court has interpreted the Tenth Amendment and the
            structure of the Constitution as placing limits on Congress
            when it involves the States in the effectuation of federal
            policy.
      --The cabining of Congress has also manifested itself in the recent
            flurry of cases that have limited the ability of Congress to
            authorize lawsuits against states under federal law.
            Individuals' rights to sue State employers in federal court
            under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is a recent
            casualty (decided on January 11, 2000). The Court has struck
            down federal laws authorizing litigation against States under
            the patent and trademark laws and is considering the validity
            of ADA lawsuits against States.

    CRS Response

        CRS has responded with the expert legal advice critical to
    Congress' ability to legislate against the backdrop of these new
    constitutional limitations. It is often necessary to include in
    analyses provided to Congress consideration of many new aspects bearing
    on the question of the underlying power of Congress to impose
    particular obligations on the States and to provide for remedies for
    violations of federal laws when hitherto such matters did not have to
    be seriously addressed.
        The legal backdrop against which Congress legislates may be
    changing in significant ways and the relative balance of power between
    the States and the federal government in our constitutional system may
    be shifting. Nevertheless, the traditional role of CRS as an
    interpreter of these changes for Congress and a source of analytical
    expertise in assisting Congress in fashioning its legislative work
    product consistent with the new legal and constitutional dictates
    remains. In summary, CRS offers an institutional perspective informed
    by years of studying and analyzing these issues as they impact on
    Congress and an unmatched breadth of resident expertise available to
    Congress in a period in which the legal and constitutional landscape is
    rapidly changing.

                              CONGRESSIONAL TENURE

        A second trend that merits discussion is the increasingly rapid
    turnover in the tenure of Members and congressional staff. It is
    important to note that this trend applies both to the length of time
    that individuals remain within the Congress as an institution, as well
    as to service in particular positions or offices. Significant aspects
    of this development include the following:
      --Turnover among Senators has been substantial in recent years. The
            decade of the 1990s witnessed the largest number of
            retirements--37--in the twentieth century. Significant numbers
            of new Senators have been added in each recent election cycle:
            14 new Senators in 1992, 11 in 1994, 15 in 1996 and 8 in 1998.
      --Under current Senate Republican Conference rules, Republican
            committee chairs and ranking members can serve no more than six
            consecutive years beginning in 1997. A similar limitation
            applies to service in any elected Republican party leadership
            positions other than Floor Leader and President Pro Tempore. As
            a result, considerable turnover in committee and party
            leadership will occur in future Congresses commencing with
            2003, even in the absence of a change in current party control
            of the Senate.
      --Staff tenure in the Senate, particularly length of service in
            particular positions, is undergoing a significant decline.
            According to the Congressional Management Foundation, in 1999
            nearly 50 percent of Senate staff had less than 1 year in their
            current positions. When broken down, this overall figure (which
            represents an all-time low since the Foundation began compiling
            tenure data in 1991) reveals considerable turnover even in
            critical positions: 52 percent of Legislative Counsels, 46
            percent of Legislative Assistants, and 38 percent of
            Legislative Directors have served less than 1 year in their
            current positions.

    CRS Response

        Clearly, these developments require CRS to be particularly
    attentive to serving the many Senators and staff taking on important
    new responsibilities. While specific committee and leadership changes
    for the 108th Congress are simply too complex to forecast at this
    juncture, it is likely that considerable shifts will result from a
    combination of continuing turnover among Senators and their staff,
    party term limits rules, and possible changes in party control of the
    Senate. CRS will need to anticipate and prepare for these changes by
    developing its research capacity during the upcoming 107th Congress and
    ensuring that CRS addresses the full range of issues likely to be on
    the agenda of all committees, especially those likely to be chaired by
    new Senators in January 2003.
        CRS policy, legal, and procedural specialists are available to
    provide the expertise to help new chairs and ranking members accomplish
    their legislative and policy objectives and to analyze a wide range of
    options on issues before their respective committees. CRS also has the
    welcome assignment of briefing new Senators and their office and
    committee staff on a wide range of substantive and procedural issues.
    In this videopolitics information age, new Senators are expected to be
    conversant with almost every issue imaginable. Given the breadth and
    depth of expertise at CRS, we are well-positioned to help incoming
    Senators and their aides become knowledgeable quickly on the issues of
    the day. Moreover, CRS procedural and legal staff are frequently called
    upon to personally brief and prepare reports on the workings of the
    Senate, even for those new Senators who have previously served in the
    House. In short, the constant circulation of new Members and staff
    aides into the Senate requires CRS to devote considerable time,
    resources, and professional talent to providing support on both
    substance and procedure.

                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        Turning to another and third area of change, developments in
    information technology are having rapid and continuous effects on the
    congressional environment. These developments have a significant
    impact, both on substantive issues before the Congress and on the way
    in which Congress works. While my testimony today will focus on the
    implications of technological change for congressional work processes,
    I should note that our analysts have also provided support on a range
    of legislative initiatives undertaken by Congress in response to
    developing technology. For example, CRS analysts assisted Members of
    Congress and their staff in understanding the issues, including
    potential costs and benefits, as federal policymakers successfully
    addressed the Y2K issue. CRS also provided expert analysis and advice
    on the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which is intended to
    provide consumers with greater access to network television stations
    via satellite retransmissions into local market areas. Third, an
    important conduit of Internet connections in the new century is
    broadband technology the ``fat pipeline'' that may allow a wide range
    of voice, data, video and interactive communications into U.S.
    households. CRS analysts have provided extensive briefings for
    congressional staff on the policy implications and technology
    developments of this vital technology development.
        CRS has also been responsive to changes in legislative work
    patterns driven by evolving technology, including increased reliance by
    Members and staff on internet information sources, the building of
    resident online legislative information resources for both chambers, e-
    mail communication capabilities, remote access to office information,
    electronic communication with constituents, computer security concerns,
    and the increased use of audio and video capabilities.
        Let me first mention that we fully appreciate the critical nature
    of computer security for our systems in light of our confidential
    relationship with the Congress and the potentially sensitive nature of
    the information that we transmit or that resides on our electronic
    systems. The importance of such security is made even more paramount by
    the structural intertwining of CRS, Library, and congressional systems
    through the Capitol Hill intranet known as CAPNET. We have taken many
    steps to deal with security issues, including the commissioning of
    studies by outside experts, including the National Security Agency,
    increasing password, virus, and remote access protections, improving
    physical security, and informing and training staff regarding proper
    security procedures and policies. Recent experiences both within the
    Congress and in executive agencies have reinforced our resolve to
    remain vigilant in the protection of congressional information.

    CRS Initiatives

        CRS has undertaken many significant initiatives in an effort to
    adapt to and take advantage of new technological capabilities to the
    extent our resources permit. In my testimony today, I will report to
    you on three of these activities, our continuing support of the
    Legislative Information System, our Y2K transition process, and the
    continuing development of our CRS Web site.

                Legislative Information System

        Under the overall direction of the Committee on House
    Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
    CRS and the Library, working with the Clerk of the House and the
    Secretary of the Senate, have developed an integrated and secure
    legislative information retrieval system for the Congress that serves
    the research and informational needs of Members and staff by providing
    access to core legislative data that is accurate, timely, and complete.
    The first release of the LIS, launched in January of 1997, included the
    summary, status, and text of bills; the text of the daily Congressional
    Record; committee reports and other publications; selected CRS Reports
    and Issue Briefs; and other legislative branch publications and
    services. Developed in concert with the House and Senate, the LIS was
    designed to reduce duplication of legislative retrieval systems within
    the Congress. It serves both novice and expert users.
        During 1999 CRS and the Library's Office of Information Technology
    Services completed most of the major enhancements approved by the
    Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and
    Administration. These efforts focused on developing and implementing a
    data exchange system among the House, Senate, and Library that was Y2K
    compliant; developing new data files and retrieval capabilities to
    provide users with a system that was comparable to Congress' legacy
    systems; and enhancing the Library's technical infrastructure to ensure
    that access to the retrieval system was reliable and secure. In
    addition to technical developments, CRS continued to work with
    congressional user groups and established methods to ensure that Senate
    and House staff had opportunities for input into the design of the
    retrieval system. While it is anticipated that the content of the LIS
    will undergo expansion and modification as user needs are identified,
    the CRS effort, coordinated with the Library, will remain focused on
    maintaining a state-of-the-art retrieval capability for core
    legislative information. LIS development continues with no additional
    funding; we have accomplished this important assignment utilizing
    existing staff and expect to continue doing so, notwithstanding the
    strain on CRS resources.

                Y2K

        Turning to a second technology initiative, the Y2K transition
    process required the inventory, review, assessment, and testing of
    virtually the entire CRS technical infrastructure. This included
    hardware, operating system-level software, and application-level
    software. As a consequence of this analytic effort, several parts of
    the CRS technical infrastructure were upgraded or replaced, increasing
    CRS efficiency and effectiveness in serving Congress. Several of the
    upgraded or replaced systems provide additional capabilities or
    constitute significant improvements in design. In one case a new system
    also allows for better coordination with congressional systems.
        The CRS Y2K effort resulted not only in assurance that all systems
    would successfully transition to the year 2000, but also led to
    significant improvements in our resident technology. For example,
    conversion of the Bill Digest/Bill Status and Summary portions of LIS
    to a new Documentum system, as mentioned earlier, was driven by the
    non-Y2K compliance of the legacy systems. The new system, designed in
    consultation with both the House and Senate, has resulted in enhanced
    data sharing and efficiency. Y2K assessment also resulted in
    replacement of some of our administrative legacy systems. More
    generally, upgrading of operating system-level components, in a common
    time frame, resulted in synchronization of versions, releases and
    application of software ``patches''. CRS also procured a number of
    assessment tools that, while needed for the Y2K process, will now serve
    to streamline and enhance troubleshooting and other functions.
        CRS is continuing to determine ``best practices'' learned from Y2K
    work to apply to ongoing oversight and updating of hardware systems and
    software applications. The CRS contingency planning has also become a
    foundation for efforts to develop more comprehensive disaster recovery
    plans.

                CRS Web Site

        A third area of CRS technological development concerns our Web
    site, available only to the legislative branch, which makes many CRS
    products and services available to the Congress electronically through
    the security of the CAPNET. This web site currently makes available all
    Issue Briefs, active CRS Reports, bill summary and status information;
    extensive coverage of all appropriations legislation; weekly alerts to
    CRS products related to upcoming floor action (the Legislative Alert);
    public policy literature abstracts and documents; Internet sources of
    information on issues of congressional interest; and information on
    legislative procedures, CRS services, and other items of use to Members
    and congressional staff. The site is the subject of constant review,
    updating, and improvement, and we continue to provide these
    enhancements without additional resources.
        During the last Congress CRS began pilots of new web products
    called ``Electronic Briefing Books''--these integrate key information
    and analysis on active legislative issues and present them in
    interactive electronic formats that provide congressional clients with
    the ability to customize their online research. Electronic Briefing
    Books also offer access to a new concept--CRS analysis written
    specifically for the electronic environment. CRS offered several
    additional electronic briefing books on a broader range of topics in
    the second session of the 106th Congress and plans to continue
    development of this concept (Currently available CRS Electronic
    Briefing Books are: ``Banking and Financial Services''; ``Campaign
    Finance Reform''; ``Electric Utility Restructuring''; ``Global Climate
    Change''; ``Social Security Reform''; ``Taxation''; ``Terrorism'';
    ``Tobacco''; ``Trade''; ``Year 2000 Computer Problem,'' with
    ``Education'' nearing completion).
        CRS Issue Briefs and an increasing percentage of reports are
    available in a hypertext format that allows the user to move easily
    within the document, to link to the text and summary of relevant
    legislation, to link to sources of information outside CRS, and to link
    to other CRS products on the topic. Several components of the CRS web
    site, such as CRS Issue Briefs and analyses of appropriations, can also
    be accessed directly from the congressional Legislative Information
    System (LIS). CRS is also exploring the use of advanced graphics, as
    well as the ``streaming'' of audio and video products to enhance the
    availability, effectiveness, and utility of online information for
    Members and staff.
        Last year CRS created a team to develop a strategic plan for the
    development and management of the CRS web site for the Congress. Among
    other tasks, the team was charged with developing a plan that will
    foster creativity and provide for expeditious development and
    implementation of new products and services; clarify organizational
    responsibilities for site design and oversight; specify mechanisms and
    staff responsibility for content development, usability testing, and
    quality control; and generally facilitate the development of an
    effective web site administration structure that is client focused.
    Recommendations are expected in late February.
        Although we are actively exploring ways to capitalize on
    technological changes, CRS and our oversight committees have been
    cautious in considering proposals that cite technological developments
    as a justification for fundamental alterations in the operations of CRS
    and the Congress.

                          PUBLICATION OF CRS PRODUCTS

        An example of the possible unintended consequences of technological
    change is a proposal which, if adopted, could diminish our capacity to
    serve you and could lead to CRS assuming functions which have
    historically been exercised by Members themselves, not by staff.
    Pending bills to make CRS products directly available to the general
    public via the Internet would change a long-standing congressional
    policy that publication of CRS materials is to be made only by Members
    on a selective basis as they deem appropriate. While current technology
    appears at first glance to make massive public dissemination more
    feasible than before, we share the concerns expressed by our oversight
    committees that such action would have serious, if unintended,
    consequences for our ability to serve you. Because the matters at issue
    go to the very heart of our relationship with the Congress, and our
    continued ability to support you in the exercise of informing
    yourselves, I believe it is incumbent on me to elaborate on this matter
    in some detail.
        Historically, CRS has struck a delicate balance between
    confidentiality and accessibility in serving the Congress. In
    responding to each request that CRS receives, we are obliged to
    maintain the same confidentiality in our communications as do personal
    and committee staff. However, because CRS as shared staff serves all
    members by serving each Member, our relationship with Representatives
    and Senators necessarily is more complicated than the relationships
    between Members and both personal and committee staff.
        The ultimate reason we exist as an organization is to make possible
    a well-informed Congress. Consequently, we cannot avoid having to
    strike a balance between confidentiality and accessibility between
    preserving confidentiality in our communications with Members and their
    other staff, and making our information and analysis as readily
    accessible as possible to all Members and staff.
        If not for the need to balance confidentiality and accessibility,
    each of our reports would be available only to the Member who requested
    us to write it. No other Member would be able to read a report, or even
    know of its existence, without the prior consent of the Representative
    or Senator for whom it was prepared. In fact, this is CRS policy with
    regard to memoranda prepared at congressional request unless the
    requesting Member waives his or her exclusive control over a
    memorandum.
        It also is CRS and congressional policy, however, to encourage
    Members to allow us to prepare written products that we can make
    available to all Members. A shared staff is most cost-effective for
    Congress only when we share our expertise with all Members who seek it.
    So CRS has a responsibility to make the knowledge of its staff
    accessible to all Members. If our manpower and other resources were
    unlimited, and if time were never a concern, we could write a new
    report to respond to each request, even if we had received much the
    same request many times before. Even if we had these capabilities,
    though, it would be wasteful to create such a large organization when
    we can satisfy many requests with the same report while improving the
    timeliness, and without significantly diminishing the quality, of our
    responses.
        It is for this reason that many written CRS products are in the
    form of reports and issue briefs that are advertised and available to
    every Representative and Senator. These products often draw upon
    research and analysis originally undertaken in the preparation of
    memoranda for individual clients, although the memoranda themselves
    remain confidential. With the support of Congress, in fact, we have
    taken major strides within the last few years to increase the
    accessibility of our congressionally distributable written products by
    making all of them available on line.
        Thus, CRS seeks to maximize access through reports and issue briefs
    that we can distribute to all Members because the unrealistic
    alternative would be to prepare essentially the same confidential
    report again and again and again. Our reliance on generally-accessible
    reports is simply a recognition of the fact that there is no other way
    in which we can effectively serve more than five hundred Members and
    their committees.
        We must strike a balance between confidentiality and accessibility,
    therefore, but only because accessibility is inescapable if we are to
    meet our responsibilities to inform all Members of both houses and do
    so in a timely and cost effective manner. For CRS, confidentiality is a
    cardinal principle; accessibility is a practical necessity.
        It follows that making CRS reports available online to the public
    would be more than an incremental expansion of our policy of
    accessibility or an adaptation of that policy to the opportunities
    presented by new technologies. Instead, direct public access would mark
    a fundamental departure from this policy and the reason for it. We make
    our reports generally accessible to Congress because there is no
    realistic way in which we can communicate so much so quickly to so
    many. In other words, the accessibility of our reports within Congress
    is unavoidable if we are achieve our sole goal: to serve Congress.
        Public accessibility, on the other hand, would serve an entirely
    different purpose: to inform the general public. No doubt informing the
    general public is an admirable purpose, but it is not the one for which
    Congress created CRS. What is more, public access to CRS reports
    undoubtedly would create demands that would make it more difficult for
    us to accomplish our central mission. Public access to our reports
    inevitably would provoke public reactions, and responding to those
    reactions would become a time-consuming and potentially all-consuming
    task.
        Finally, Congress has traditionally regarded relationships with
    constituents as a responsibility and a prerogative of Members
    themselves. It may be questioned whether delegating such a function to
    a staff agency such as CRS, which has no experience with or resources
    available for dealing with constituents, would represent either an
    efficient or appropriate mission for us. Such a shift in our role, from
    supporting Members to substituting for them, could have serious
    repercussions in our long-term relationships with you and your
    colleagues.

                              SUCCESSION PLANNING

        The declining tenure of Members and congressional staff, and the
    resulting loss of experience throughout the Congress, make it even more
    imperative that CRS preserve its role as a collective institutional
    memory. We have taken many initiatives to maintain this capacity,
    including implementation of the organizational realignment on which I
    reported to you in last year's testimony.
        Central to our efforts is the CRS succession plan, now in its third
    year, which is designed to pass along the expertise and institutional
    memory of veteran CRS staff prior to their expected retirements over
    the next several years. The plan, based on a research capacity risk
    assessment and staff surveys, envisions that newly hired, entry-level
    staff will work closely with senior analysts in an apprenticeship
    capacity, acquiring subject area knowledge and familiarity with the
    unique set of principles and guidelines that govern our relationship
    with the Congress.
        Thanks to you and your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this vision is
    becoming a reality. In fiscal 1999, the Congress provided $435,585
    which supported ten hires. In fiscal 2000, an additional $559,052 was
    provided, which was later reduced to $288,325 as a result of the .38
    percent across-the-board cut; these funds supported five additional
    hires. This additional funding has enabled us to recruit significant
    new talent to CRS, using three national recruitment programs: the CRS
    Graduate Recruit Program, the CRS Law Recruit Program, and the
    government-wide Presidential Management Intern Program. Through these
    programs, we have hired entry-level staff from some of the top graduate
    schools in the country. With your support, CRS has hired entry-level
    analysts in a number of critical subject areas. These areas include:
    social security; transportation; Africa, Asia and the Middle East;
    public finance; biomedical policy; natural resources and environmental
    policy; industry economics; and the physical sciences. Working under
    the direction of senior CRS analysts, these staff are already making
    significant contributions to the work of the Congress. They are
    conducting in-depth research on topics of legislative interest, writing
    analytical reports and memoranda in response to congressional requests,
    participating in CRS-sponsored seminars and briefings, and performing
    valuable information research services in CRS reading rooms and
    research centers. I have with me a document that highlights some of the
    contributions made by three of our recent hires--Christine Devere, Jon
    Shimabukuro, and Kai Barth--who I believe are representative of the
    high caliber of talent and expertise that these new staff bring to CRS.
    I would be pleased to submit that document for the record, along with
    some specific examples of their work.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank you once
    again for supporting our succession plan, particularly during this
    period of fiscal constraint. We recognize the investment you are making
    in CRS's future, and we are committed to making good on that
    investment. In fiscal 2001, we are requesting $860,045 to continue to
    fill positions in additional high risk issue areas before retirements
    significantly reduce research capacity, and $270,727 to restore the
    succession positions lost in the fiscal 2000 rescission, for a total
    fiscal 2001 increase of $1,130,772. With your continued support, Mr.
    Chairman, CRS will be able to sustain the type of information and
    analytical support that you have traditionally sought and received from
    us.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by thanking you for the
    opportunity to appear before you and your colleagues today. I want to
    reiterate how much we appreciate the support which this Subcommittee
    has given to CRS in past years, and I hope that our assistance to the
    Congress in the future will warrant your continued confidence and
    trust.
                                     ______

          Profiles of Recent Staff Hired Under the CRS Succession Plan

        Through its succession plan, the Congressional Research Service
    (CRS) has attracted a number of highly qualified candidates using three
    national recruitment programs: the CRS Graduate Recruit Program, the
    CRS Law Recruit Program, and the government-wide Presidential
    Management Intern (PMI) Program. This document and its attachments
    outline some of the contributions being made by three individuals hired
    under CRS's succession plan programs: Christine Devere, Jon
    Shimabukuro, and Kai Barth. Each is representative of the high caliber
    of talent and expertise that Graduate Recruits, Law Recruits, and PMIs
    bring to the Congress and to CRS.
        Christine Devere: Christine's first exposure to CRS came in the
    summer of 1997 when she participated in the CRS Summer Employment
    Program, the precursor to the full-fledged Graduate Recruit Program. At
    that time, Christine was a graduate student pursuing a master's degree
    in public policy at the University of Rochester. During that summer,
    working with experienced staff, Christine helped prepare estimates of
    welfare-to-work state grants. She also contributed to the development
    of a research database that is used to collect and analyze information
    on two additional programs--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    (TANF) program and the child care and development block grant program.
    In 1998, upon completion of her master's degree, Christine returned to
    CRS as a Presidential Management Intern (PMI).
        During her tenure at CRS, Christine has prepared analyses and
    briefed congressional staff on a number of issues surrounding welfare
    reform, child care, adoption assistance, and foster care. An example of
    Christine's analytical expertise can be seen in her analysis of the
    National Survey of Family Growth, which examines why there are low
    adoption rates for special need children. More recently, Christine
    presented a research plan for a CRS analysis of welfare reform
    evaluations to a group of nationally-recognized welfare experts and
    senior congressional staff. Christine's presence has expanded
    significantly CRS's capacity to analyze difficult public policy issues
    like welfare reform through her use of statistical analyses of survey
    data, the preparation of grant estimates, and the critical review of
    public policy evaluation.
        Jon Shimabukuro: Jon joined CRS through the CRS Law Recruit Program
    in September of 1998, shortly after receiving his J.D. degree from
    Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. During his
    law school years, Jon gained considerable legal experience serving as
    an intern with both the U.S. Magistrates Office of the U.S. District
    Court in the Southern District of Illinois and the City of Tacoma Human
    Rights Department. He also worked as a Summer Associate with the Office
    of Legal Counsel, May Department Stores Company, where he gained
    experience in the labor and commercial law arenas. Jon received his
    B.A. from Vassar College where he majored in Urban Studies.
        Upon joining CRS, Jon quickly immersed himself in the legal and
    legislative intricacies of both electricity deregulation and managed
    care. He contributed the legal analysis section of the CRS Electric
    Utility Restructuring Electronic Briefing Book, co-authored a CRS
    report on electricity restructuring, and participated in several high
    level briefings for Members and staff. Under the direction of a more
    senior CRS attorney, Jon assisted a Member in drafting a piece of
    managed care legislation and prepared a CRS report analyzing recent
    proposals for grievance and appeals procedures in managed care. Jon
    also participated in a CRS Federal Law Update (FLU) seminar where, with
    two of his fellow attorneys, he addressed legal issues regarding
    proposed patients' rights legislation. While much of his work has been
    in these areas, Jon has also researched and written on legal issues
    relating to business law, civil rights and labor law. During his brief
    tenure, Jon has had significant contact with Committee and Member
    staff, participating in a number of briefings, and has developed
    important relationships with CRS colleagues.
        Kai Barth: Kai joined CRS in the summer of 1999 as a Graduate
    Recruit Analyst in Science & Technology Policy. He currently is in the
    process of defending his doctoral dissertation in History of Science
    and Technology at the University of Minnesota, where he maintained a
    4.0 grade point average. Kai received his M.S. in Experimental High-
    Energy Physics in 1991 and a B.S. in Physics in 1984. In addition to
    his academic background, Kai has worked as a high energy physicist at a
    particle physics laboratory; written and published numerous papers,
    including an article on seismology and nuclear test ban negotiations
    that was published in Physics Today; and spent a summer working for the
    National Academy of Sciences.
        In just a short time, Kai has made significant contributions to
    CRS, most notably in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation issues,
    high-energy physics, and the Spallation Neutron Source project. Under
    the direction of senior CRS analysts, Kai has authored a number of
    analytical reports and memoranda on these issues and participated in
    several policy meetings with congressional and professional staff. Kai
    also provided extensive research and support in designing and
    implementing a website that will be used by the Senate Governmental
    Affairs Committee as an electronic committee print on the issue of
    nuclear non-proliferation.
                                     ______

      Adoption: Characteristics of Women Interested in Adopting a Child--
                                 August 5, 1998

                                    ABSTRACT

        This report analyzes data from the 1995 National Survey of Family
    Growth (NSFG) that asked a sample of women of child-bearing age (15 to
    44) questions about their interest in adoption. Specifically, this
    report addresses three topics. First, the number of women interested in
    adoption is examined to identify the potential pool of adoptive women.
    Second, this report examines select characteristics of women in 1995
    who are interested in adoption. Finally, the preferences for children
    among women interested in adoption are explored. Conclusions and policy
    implications are provided. This report will not be updated.

    Summary

        Federal policy actively supports the adoption of children, with
    special emphasis on children with special needs. In recent years,
    particularly as the number of children in foster care has grown,
    Congress has enacted additional legislation. In 1997, legislation
    intended to shorten a child's length of stay in foster care and to
    promote adoption (Public Law 105-89) was enacted.
        According to the most recent data available on total adoptions in
    the United States, 127,441 children were adopted in 1992. However, in
    fiscal year 1996, there were approximately 500,000 children in foster
    care, of which an estimated 80,000 had case plans for adoption. Within
    the adoption community, a controversy exists around the question of
    whether there are enough families interested in adoption to adopt every
    child legally available, including the 80,000 children currently in
    foster care awaiting adoption. The population of children in foster
    care awaiting adoption is comprised disproportionately of older
    children, many of whom have special needs or circumstances.
        This report analyzes data from the 1995 National Survey of Family
    Growth (NSFG) that asked a sample of women of childbearing age (15 to
    44) questions surrounding their interest in adoption. The estimates are
    based on the responses gathered from the women surveyed and should be
    interpreted with caution. Adoption is a relatively rare occurrence and
    therefore, in some cases, the number of responses is small. The key
    findings are as follows:
      --In 1995, 12.7 million women (or 23 percent of the 15 to 44 year old
            age group) indicated that they had ever considered adopting a
            child. However, approximately 500,000 (1 percent of the
            population) were seeking to adopt a child in 1995. Further,
            there is evidence that these responses may be more casual than
            serious. Among the 12.7 million women who said they had ever
            considered adoption, only 1.8 million had taken steps toward
            adoption. Among the 500,000 who claimed to be seeking to adopt
            a child in 1995, only about 182,000 had actually taken steps.
      --Older women, married women, higher income women, and women who
            cannot bear their own children are most likely to have actually
            adopted. However, marital status and income were not as
            important in predicting whether a woman would be interested in
            adoption.
      --The low rate of adoptions among women who express interest in
            adoption may be related to the type of children they want to
            adopt and the extent to which these children are available.
            Women primarily expressed a preference for healthy young
            children and generally expressed no preference regarding the
            sex or religion of the child. While the majority of women
            prefer a child of their own race, a substantial number of women
            were indifferent as to the race of the child.

    Introduction

        Federal policy actively supports the adoption of children,
    particularly children with special needs. Under Title IV-E of the
    Social Security Act, the federal government helps states provide
    financial assistance to parents who adopt hard-to-place children. Under
    the Adoption Opportunities Program, the federal government supports
    state and local projects intended to promote adoption, particularly for
    special needs children in foster care. Special needs children are
    generally defined to include older children, those who are disabled or
    have other medical or emotional conditions, members of sibling groups,
    and racial or ethnic minorities. In recent years, as the number of
    children in foster care has grown, Congress has enacted additional
    legislation to promote adoption:
      --in 1996, a tax credit for families to help offset the costs of
            adoption, equal to $5,000 per adoption or $6,000 for the
            adoption of a special needs child;
      --also in 1996, legislation prohibiting states from denying or
            delaying a child's adoption on the basis of race, color, or
            national origin; and
      --in 1997, foster care reform legislation intended to shorten a
            child's length of stay in foster care and to promote their
            adoption, including procedural changes and financial incentives
            to states.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For an overview of the 1997 legislation, see: CRS Report 97-
    491, Adoption Promotion Legislation in the 105th Congress, by Karen
    Spar.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These programs and legislation reflect several concerns. The new
    tax credit reflects the concern that some potential adoptive parents
    may be unwilling or unable to incur the costs of adoption. Policymakers
    have been especially concerned with promoting adoption of special needs
    children, as reflected in the enhanced tax credit and financial
    assistance for parents who adopt such children. The prohibition against
    racial or ethnic discrimination reflects concern that ``race-matching''
    practices may prevent or delay some children from becoming adopted.
    Finally, the 1997 foster care and adoption reform reflects concern that
    legal and bureaucratic barriers exist in the child welfare and judicial
    systems that may prevent some adoptions from occurring, or from
    occurring in a timetable consistent with a child's best interests.
        Adoption is a relatively rare occurrence. According to the most
    recent data on total adoptions in the United States, 127,441 children
    were adopted in 1992.\2\ However, in fiscal year 1996, there were
    approximately 500,000 children in foster care, of which an estimated
    80,000 had case plans for adoption.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Total adoptions include relative or stepparent adoptions,
    private or independent adoptions, public agency adoptions of children
    in the foster care system, and intercountry or international adoptions
    of foreign-born children. The data provided is reported in Flango,
    Victor and Carol Flango. The Flow of Adoption Information from the
    States. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1994.
        \3\ For an overview of issues concerning foster care and adoption,
    see: CRS Report 97-256, Adoption, Foster Care, and Child Welfare:
    Issues for Congress, by Karen Spar.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This report analyzes data from the 1995 National Survey of Family
    Growth (NSFG) that asked a sample of women of child-bearing age (15 to
    44) questions about their interest in adoption (in the context of other
    questions concerning how families are formed). \4\ This report uses
    NSFG data to address three basic questions:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The NSFG is a household survey of women that is completed every
    couple of years under a contract of the National Center for Health
    Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While men and
    women may have an interest in adoption, the NSFG asked these questions
    of women and therefore women are the focus of this report. The sample
    included a few women who were outside of this age range based on the
    lengthy process of completing the survey. However, all the women in the
    sample were between 15 and 44 years of age as of April 1, 1995.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --How many women are interested in adoption? Within the adoption
            community, a controversy exists around the question of whether
            there are enough families interested in adoption to adopt every
            child that is legally available, including the 80,000 children
            currently in foster care awaiting adoption. The NSFG data can
            be used to examine how many women were currently seeking to
            adopt a child in 1995, how many women had ever considered
            adoption, and how many women who had ever considered adoption
            would do so again. In other words, how large is the potential
            pool of adoptive women?
      --What are the characteristics of women interested in adoption? Are
            some women interested in adoption but, because of certain
            characteristics, are less likely to be able to actually adopt
            (e.g., marital status, age)? Among those who are interested in
            adoption, could public programs and policy intended to promote
            and support adoption increase the number of women who are able
            to adopt?
      --What are the preferences for children among women who are
            interested in adoption? How do the characteristics of children
            in foster care compare with the characteristics desired by
            potentially adoptive women? That is, even if there are a large
            number of women interested in adopting a child, are these women
            interested in adopting the type of children who are in foster
            care?

    A Note on Data Limitations

        The 1995 NSFG data have limitations inherent with survey analysis.
    The primary objective of conducting a survey is to gather responses
    from individuals through an interview process where the results are
    then analyzed by a group of researchers. This is a multi-stage process
    and therefore subject to error.
        Because information comes from a sample survey, estimates are
    subject to sampling error and nonsampling error.\5\ Sampling error
    arises because only a sample of women 15 to 44 years of age were
    surveyed rather than the entire population of women 15 to 44 years of
    age. Further, because adoption is a relatively rare occurrence, sample
    survey estimates on populations such as women who were seeking to adopt
    or had ever adopted are imprecise because they are based on the
    responses from a small number of women in the sample. Nonsampling error
    arises due to the nature of gathering survey information. It is
    possible for the respondent to answer a question inaccurately either
    because of imperfect recall, due to ambiguities in the question, or
    because of other reasons.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ For a more in-depth discussion of survey limitations and error,
    please see Backstrom, Charles H. Survey Research. 2nd ed. Macmillan
    Publishing Company: New York. 1981.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, this report's analysis is based on information
    gathered at a specific point-in-time, 1995. The characteristics shown
    for women who had ever adopted a child are those observed in 1995.
    These are not necessarily the characteristics these women had in the
    year they adopted a child.\6\ Point-in-time estimates also do not
    permit inferences about changes in the likelihood of adoption over
    time.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ This report examines six different characteristics: income,
    age, race, education, marital status, and the ability to bear own
    child. Some of these characteristics may have changed since the year of
    adoption (education and age) while others have remained constant
    (race). In addition, other subcategories may change (earn a college
    degree) while others remain constant (never-married). It is important
    to identify these differences in interpreting the results presented in
    this report.
        \7\ For example, some of the analysis in this report compares
    characteristics of women interested in adoption with those
    characteristics of women who have ever adopted. However, differences
    found between the populations cannot be examined in relation to time.
    While these descriptive statistics illustrate the likelihood of
    adopting a child as of 1995, they do not permit inferences as to
    whether these reflect a change in the likelihood of adopting a child
    over time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are also limits to the conclusions that can be drawn from the
    comparison of characteristics of women interested in adoption in 1995
    to those who had ever adopted a child. Some of the relationships
    observed in this report might be interrelated. For example, this report
    found that older women and women with higher incomes are more likely to
    have adopted a child. However, in general, older women are more likely
    to have higher incomes. While both of these characteristics appear
    related to the decision to adopt, it is also possible that at least
    some of the differences in the likelihood of being interested in
    adopting a child versus having ever adopted a child may have more to do
    with age than with income. The descriptive statistics provided in this
    report do not examine these sorts of relationships.
        Therefore, the empirical findings in this report should be used
    with caution. They provide a general idea of the potential pool of
    adoptive women, of the characteristics of women of child-bearing age
    interested in adoption, and of women's preferences for adoptive
    children. Appendix A discusses in more detail some of the technical
    limitations of the analysis in this report.

    The Number of Women Interested in Adoption

        Within the adoption community, a controversy exists around the
    question of whether there are enough families interested in adoption to
    adopt every child who is legally available, including the 80,000
    children currently in foster care awaiting adoption in the United
    States. Adoption occurs fairly rarely, and a relatively small
    percentage of foster children available for adoption exit the foster
    care system through adoption each year. So how large is the actual
    interest in adoption? The NSFG data can provide some information on
    this question.
        According to the NSFG, about 500,000 women of child-bearing age (15
    to 44) were seeking to adopt a child in 1995. This represents only
    about 1 percent of all women in the 15 to 44 year old age group.
    However, a much larger group of women said they had ever considered
    adoption--12.7 million, or approximately 23 percent of the overall age
    group. Of those women who had ever considered adoption, 8 million
    (approximately 13 percent of the overall age group) said they would
    consider adoption again.
        Chart 1 shows the number of women in 1995 who said they were
    currently seeking to adopt or had ever considered adoption. It also
    shows the number of women of child-bearing age who had actually adopted
    a child (about 500,000).

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.000

        Chart 1 also provides estimates of the sampling error associated
    with the survey responses shown. As previously mentioned, sampling
    error arises because only a sample of women 15 to 44 years of age were
    surveyed rather than the entire population of women 15 to 44 years of
    age. The numbers in parentheses represent the possible variation in
    estimation due to sampling error.\8\ For example, while the survey
    predicts that 498,000 women were currently seeking to adopt, the number
    might actually be as low as 430,000 or as high as 566,000 as indicated
    by the ( 68,000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The numbers in parentheses are the ``confidence intervals'' of
    the estimates at the 95 percent levels. That is, given statistical
    probabilities, 95 times out of 100 a sample drawn from this population
    would produce estimates within the boundaries of the confidence
    intervals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The responses from women who said they had or would have considered
    adopting a child may sometimes reflect a ``casual'' rather than a
    ``serious'' interest in adoption. Table 1 identifies the level of
    consideration that women gave to adoption by examining actual steps
    taken by individuals who were seeking to adopt or who had ever
    considered adoption.

          TABLE 1.--WOMEN WHO CONSIDERED ADOPTION BY SPECIFIC STEPS TAKEN
                         (Number of Women in Thousands)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Currently       Have ever
                                                seeking to      considered
                                                   adopt         adoption
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total number of women who have placed a              182           1,803
     newspaper ad or contacted an adoption
     agency, lawyer, doctor, or other source
     about adopting a child.................
    Specific Steps taken Toward Adoption:
     \1\
        Number of women who have formally                 84             478
         applied to an adoption  agency.....
        Number of women who have engaged a                26             187
         lawyer to make arrangements for an
         adoption...........................
        Number of women who have placed a     ..............              19
         newspaper ad.......................
        Other steps.........................              72           1,119
                                             -------------------------------
          Total number of women who have                 316          10,870
           taken no steps...................
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................             498          12,673
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ It is possible for a woman to have completed more than one step. For
      example, a woman may have formally applied to an adoption agency and
      placed a newspaper ad.

    Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based
      on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

        The NSFG data indicate that while many women have thought about
    adoption, very few of these women actually have taken steps toward
    adopting a child. Even among women who responded to the question that
    they were ``currently'' seeking to adopt a child in 1995, only 182,000
    (or approximately 37 percent) had actually taken any steps toward
    adoption. Of the population who responded that they had ever considered
    adoption, only 1.8 million (or approximately 14 percent) had taken any
    steps toward adoption.

    Characteristics of Women Interested In Adoption

        Though many women express at least some interest in adopting a
    child, the number of women seriously considering adoption and taking
    steps toward it appears to be much smaller. Additionally, some women
    interested in adoption might have characteristics such as age or
    marital status that make them less likely to adopt, further shrinking
    the pool of potential adoptive women.
        Women with certain characteristics are more likely to be interested
    in adoption than other women. The 1995 NSFG gathered information that
    includes income, age, education, race, marital status, and the ability
    to bear own child. Thus, it is possible to examine how likely a woman
    is to be interested in adoption, by these characteristics.
        Likelihood of Interest in Adoption by Characteristic.--Table 2
    shows the percentage of women who were interested in adoption by
    selected characteristics. Two groups of women interested in adoption
    are shown: (1) women who were currently seeking to adopt a child; and
    (2) women who had ever considered adoption and would consider it again.
    In addition, women who had actually adopted a child are shown in the
    table.
        Table 2 shows whether and how a woman's characteristics in 1995 are
    related to her likelihood of being interested in adoption and actually
    adopting a child. This table also shows whether there are different
    relationships between being interested in adoption and actually having
    adopted a child. The numbers in the table are interpreted as follows:
    0.84 percent of all women age 15 to 44 in 1995 had ever adopted a
    child; 0.90 percent of all women age 15 to 44 in 1995 were currently
    seeking to adopt a child in 1995; and 13.5 percent of all women age 15
    to 44 in 1995 had ever considered adoption and would consider adoption
    again. For each category of women, the numbers represent the percentage
    of women in that group that fell into one of the three categories. For
    example, 0.27 percent of lower income women (incomes below 151 percent
    of the poverty threshold in 1995) had ever adopted; 0.82 percent of
    lower income women were currently seeking to adopt a child in 1995; and
    11.69 percent of lower income women had ever considered adoption and
    would consider adopting again. Further, the relationships in this table
    (e.g., between income level and currently seeking to adopt) were tested
    to determine their statistical significance.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See discussion in Appendix A.

      TABLE 2.--PERCENT OF WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING AGE (15-44) INTERESTED IN ADOPTION OR WHO HAD ADOPTED A CHILD, BY
                                            SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS IN 1995
                                                      [In percent]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Considered
                                                                                         Currently     adoption and
                                                                       Ever adopted     seeking to    would consider
                                                                                           adopt           again
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Population \1\............................................            0.84            0.90           13.52
    Income (As a Percent of the Poverty Level):
        Less than 151 percent of the poverty level..................            0.27            0.82           11.69
        151-300 percent of the poverty level........................            0.69            0.74           13.20
        301-450 percent of the poverty level........................            1.21            0.62           13.61
        451-600 percent of the poverty level........................            1.03            0.91           15.96
        Greater than 600 percent of the poverty level...............            1.50            1.80           14.72
    Age:
        15 to 25 years of age.......................................            0.04            0.36           11.01
        26 to 34 years of age.......................................            0.41            0.72           18.16
        35 to 44 years of age.......................................            1.96            1.44           11.75
    Formal Marital Status: \2\
        Married.....................................................            1.33            1.07           13.92
        Divorced/separated..........................................            1.05            1.08           13.52
        Never married...............................................            0.07            0.55           13.05
    Education:
        No degree...................................................            0.28            1.67            6.83
        High school or equivalent...................................            0.80            0.70           14.67
        Associate's degree..........................................            1.64            0.97           16.93
        Bachelor's degree...........................................            1.05            1.12           16.70
        Beyond bachelor's degree (Master's degree or Ph.D.).........            1.76            0.51           16.22
        Some other academic degree..................................            3.28            0.00           10.06
    Race:
        Hispanic....................................................            0.54            1.13           15.34
        White (non-Hispanic)........................................            0.90            0.66           12.77
        Black (non-Hispanic)........................................            0.89            1.73           15.13
        Other (non-Hispanic)........................................            0.42            1.74           15.82
    Ability to bear own child:
        Surgically sterile for Contraceptive reasons................            0.95            1.08           10.90
        Surgically sterile for Noncontraceptive reasons.............            3.91            1.70           13.33
        Nonsurgically sterile.......................................            8.30            5.34           24.90
        Difficulty conceiving or delivering a child/Long interval               2.08            1.53           24.23
         with no pregnancy..........................................
        Able to conceive............................................            0.27            0.55           12.78
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The samples for women who had adopted a child or who were currently seeking to adopt a child are relatively
      small, so some of the differences shown may reflect the imprecision of the estimates due to these small sample
      sizes, rather than actual differences among the categories of women.
    \2\ Results for the population of widowed women are not presented because of their small subgroup.

    Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

        The table shows that a woman's likelihood to be interested in
    adoption is related to certain characteristics. In some cases, the
    relationship between a woman's characteristics in 1995 and the
    likelihood that she has actually adopted are more apparent than that of
    her characteristics in 1995 and the likelihood of her being interested
    in adoption. For example, women of child-bearing age in all income
    groups express interest in adoption. The percentage of lower income
    women who had ever considered adoption and would consider it again is
    only somewhat lower than for other income groups, and the percentage of
    lower income women who were currently seeking adoption is about the
    same as for other women. However, the percentage of women who had
    actually adopted is far lower in the lowest income group than in higher
    income groups.
        As might be expected, the likelihood of having actually adopted a
    child or currently to be seeking to adopt a child increases
    substantially with a woman's age. Education also affects the likelihood
    that she has actually adopted a child or has considered adoption and
    would consider adoption again. Women with more education or more likely
    to consider adoption. Women who lack a high school diploma appear very
    unlikely to consider adoption or actually to adopt a child.
        Also as might be expected, the ability of a woman to bear her own
    child affects her interest in adoption and the likelihood to adopt.
    Women who are nonsurgically sterile in 1995 are the most likely to have
    adopted a child, to have been seeking to adopt a child in 1995, and to
    have considered adoption and be willing to consider it again.
        Marital status appears to be related to the decision to adopt a
    child, with married women most likely to have adopted a child. However,
    there does not appear to be a relationship between marital status and
    whether the woman is currently seeking to adopt or has considered
    adoption and would consider adoption again.\10\ In addition, the
    woman's race/ethnicity appears to be related to whether the woman is
    currently seeking to adopt a child. However, there does not appear to
    be a relationship between the woman's race/ethnicity and the likelihood
    that she has actually adopted a child or has considered adoption and
    would consider adoption again.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Though never-married women were just as likely to be
    interested in adoption as married women, it is not known whether this
    will translate into more never-married women actually adopting in the
    future. The point-in-time estimate (interest in 1995) does not permit
    inferences as to whether more never-married women were interested in
    adoption in 1995 than in the past. It is possible that changes in state
    policies and program practices have made adoptions for never-married
    women easier over time. However, information from the 1995 NSFG alone
    cannot be used to determine whether the high level of interest in
    adoption among never-married women coincides with policy change or
    represents a trend toward more actual interest in adoption among this
    group.
        \11\ There is a statistical relationship between marital status and
    the decision to adopt a child, with married women most likely to have
    adopted a child. However, there does not appear to be a statistical
    relationship between marital status and whether the woman is currently
    seeking to adopt or had considered adoption and would consider
    adoption. A woman's race/ethnicity was also not statistically related
    to her likelihood of actually having adopted or having considered
    adoption and would consider adoption again. However, there is a
    statistically significant relationship between race/ethnicity and the
    likelihood to currently be seeking to adopt in 1995. See Appendix A for
    a discussion of statistical significance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some of the observed relationships in the table might be
    interrelated. For example, age, income, and educational attainment are
    all interrelated. Older women are more likely to have higher income and
    educational attainment than younger women. Additionally, the likelihood
    of having ever adopted also is related to age; older women are more
    likely than younger women to have considered adoption. Therefore, some
    of the differences in the likelihood to be interested in adoption
    compared with having ever adopted may have more to do with age than
    with some other characteristic, such as educational attainment.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ To examine these relationships further, a multivariate
    statistical analysis would be required. Some initial analysis of this
    type is presented in Devere, Christine. An Analysis of the Adoption Tax
    Credit Policy. University of Rochester Department of Political Science,
    Public Policy Analysis Working Paper 98-8-1. May 1, 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Composition of Women Who Have Adopted or Are Currently Seeking to
    Adopt.--Examining the composition of women who have adopted or who are
    currently seeking to adopt provides another perspective on women's
    interest in adoption. The analysis described in the previous section is
    intended to answer questions such as: ``For a woman in a certain income
    category, how likely is she to be interested in adoption or to actually
    adopt, as compared with women in other income categories?'' Viewing the
    composition of each subgroup of women, by their level of interest, is
    intended to answer such questions as: ``Of those women who are
    interested in adopting a child, how many fall within a certain income
    category?''
        Chart 2 through Chart 7 show the composition of women of child-
    bearing age in 1995 who said they were currently seeking to adopt in
    1995 (who are more likely to have a strong interest than those who had
    ever considered adoption), and the composition of women of child-
    bearing age in 1995 who had actually adopted a child. The charts show
    the composition of women in these two groups by: income (Chart 2); age
    (Chart 3); marital status (Chart 4); education (Chart 5); race and
    Hispanic origin (Chart 6); and ability to bear own child (Chart 7).
        The percent of women in both groups that fall into a particular
    category depends: (a) on the size of that category within the
    population of all women of child-bearing age; and (b) how likely these
    women were to have adopted a child or to currently be seeking to adopt
    a child.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.006

        Some of the major points from examining the composition of women
    who have adopted and those currently seeking to adopt are:
      --Income.--Lower income women (with incomes below 151 percent of the
            poverty line in 1995) comprise approximately 21 percent of
            those who reported they were currently seeking to adopt a
            child, but only around 7 percent of those who had actually
            adopted a child. As shown earlier in Table 2, lower income
            women in 1995 were about as likely as other women to report
            that they were seeking to adopt a child in 1995; thus, their
            share of women who were currently seeking to adopt is
            proportional to their share of all women of child-bearing age.
      --Age.--Of women who had ever adopted a child, 83 percent were
            between 35 and 44 years of age in 1995 (only around 1 percent
            were between the ages of 15 and 25 in 1995). Of women of child-
            bearing age who were currently seeking to adopt, approximately
            62 percent were between 35 and 44 years of age in 1995.
      --Marital Status.--Women who were married in 1995 comprised the vast
            majority of women who had adopted, as well as women who were
            currently seeking to adopt. Though never-married women were
            unlikely to be currently seeking to adopt, they comprise
            approximately 38 percent of all women of child-bearing age.
            Because never-married women are a relatively large share of all
            women of child-bearing age, never-married women represent a
            substantial percentage of women who were currently seeking to
            adopt in 1995. Almost one-fifth of women currently seeking to
            adopt in 1995 were never-married.
      --Education.--One-fourth of women who were seeking to adopt in 1995
            lacked a high school diploma or equivalent. However, because
            women with low education levels were very unlikely to actually
            adopt, only 7 percent of women who had adopted a child lacked a
            high school diploma in 1995.
      --Race.--Minority women (black, Hispanic, or other) were
            overrepresented relative to their population shares among women
            seeking to adopt in 1995. White women comprised 71 percent of
            all women of child-bearing age, but only about half of all
            women who were seeking to adopt a child in 1995. However, white
            women account for about three-quarters of all women of child-
            bearing age who had actually adopted a child.
      --Ability to Bear Own Child.--Women who cannot bear, or have
            difficulty bearing their own child,\13\ are overrepresented
            relative to their overall population share among women who had
            adopted a child or who were currently seeking to adopt a child
            in 1995. Women who cannot bear, or have difficulty bearing
            their own child, account for approximately 38 percent of all
            women of child-bearing age. However, they accounted for 64
            percent of women who were seeking to adopt a child in 1995.
            Moreover, women who cannot bear, or have difficulty bearing a
            child, accounted for 80 percent of women who actually
            adopted.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Women who cannot bear, or have difficulty bearing their own
    child are defined as follows: surgically sterile for noncontraceptive
    reasons, surgically sterile for contraceptive reasons, nonsurgically
    sterile, or have difficulty conceiving or have had no pregnancy.
        \14\ Results are from additional tabulations of the 1995 National
    Survey of Family Growth completed by the Congressional Research
    Service, not displayed in this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preferences for Children Among Women Interested in Adoption

        Despite the widespread interest in adoption, few women actually
    take steps toward adoption and some who might pursue it face barriers
    to adoption such as low income. Therefore, the ``pool'' of potentially
    adoptive women is smaller than it might first appear. Additionally, in
    examining the adoption of foster children, it is useful to compare
    women's preferences for adopting certain types of children to the types
    of children in foster care. According to the Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS), in fiscal year 1996, of the 500,000 children in
    the foster care system, only 4 percent were under 1 year old, 29
    percent were between the ages of 1 and 5, and the rest were age 6 and
    older.\15\ Racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented among
    foster children. Foster children also are more likely than other
    children to have special needs, and many are part of sibling groups.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Adoption Statistics Package, National Adoption Information
    Clearinghouse (http:www.calib.com/naic/adptsear/adoption/research/
    index.htm).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This section addresses the question: What types of children are
    women interested in adopting? The 1995 NSFG asked women who were
    currently seeking to adopt a child in 1995 their preferences regarding
    the child's age, level of disability, race, sex, religion, and size of
    sibling groups. Women generally expressed no preference regarding a
    child's sex or religion (indicating primarily indifference).\16\ The
    following charts show women's preferences for adoptive children by a
    child's: age (Chart 8), race (Chart 9), level of disability (Chart 10),
    and by the number of children the woman is seeking to adopt (Chart 11).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ It is unlikely that preferences for a child's sex or religion
    could have policy implications. Therefore, the charts for the woman's
    preference for a child's sex or religion are not presented. Table B-1
    in Appendix B presents more complete data on these preferences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table B-1 in Appendix B presents more complete data on these
    preferences in table format.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE22.010

        Age of Child.--Women interested in adoption would predominately
    prefer to adopt an infant or young child. As Chart 8 shows, 58 percent
    of those who were seeking to adopt a child in 1995 preferred an infant
    or toddler. Few women were interested in adopting a child aged 6 or
    older. It also is interesting to note that relatively few women were
    indifferent with regard to a child's age.
        Race.--As shown in Chart 9, the largest single group of potentially
    adoptive women--about 42 percent--indicated that they were basically
    indifferent regarding the race of an adoptive child. This chart also
    shows that about 29 percent of potential adoptive women would prefer
    white children. However, when also considering the race of the woman,
    it appears that there is a preference for children of the same race.
    Among women who are currently seeking to adopt, 52 percent of black
    women prefer black children, and 51 percent of white women prefer white
    children/\17\ Nonetheless, a substantial share of potentially adoptive
    women are indifferent with regard to a child's race.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Results are from additional tabulations of the 1995 National
    Survey of Family Growth by the Congressional Research Service, not
    displayed in this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Level of Disability.--Women interested in adopting prefer children
    with no disabilities, although some would prefer children with
    different levels of disability. Very few women would prefer children
    with severe disabilities. Chart 10 shows the preference for the child's
    level of disability among women who were seeking to adopt in 1995.
    About 16 percent of women were indifferent with regard to a child's
    level of disability.
        Number of Children.--As Chart 11 illustrates, women generally
    prefer to adopt a single child, rather than a group of siblings,
    although around 26 percent said they would prefer to adopt two or more
    children at the same time. As with age, relatively few women were
    indifferent with regard to the preferred number of children to be
    adopted.

    Conclusions and Policy Implications

        The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth identified a potential
    pool of adoptive women, which initially appears relatively large.
    However, while almost 12.7 million women indicated that they had ever
    considered adopting a child, only about 500,000 (1 percent of the
    population) were currently seeking to adopt a child in 1995. Further,
    after examining the steps taken by these women toward adoption, there
    is evidence that the initial response of many may have been more casual
    than serious. Among the 12.7 million women who said they had ever
    considered adoption, only 1.8 million had actually taken steps toward
    adoption. The same pattern was true of women who were currently seeking
    to adopt. While almost 500,000 claimed to be seeking to adopt a child
    in 1995, only about 182,000 had actually taken steps toward adoption.
        There are numerous potential explanations for why fewer women
    actually pursue adoption, despite their relatively high level of
    interest. The NSFG data provide information regarding the
    characteristics of those women who are most likely to adopt, as well as
    the child preferences of potential adoptive women. Although the sample
    sizes were small, these data may be useful in the evaluation of public
    policies to promote and support adoption.
        As discussed in this report, certain characteristics are associated
    with an increased likelihood that a woman has adopted a child. Age,
    marital status, income, and the ability to bear own child are
    significant, with older women, married women, higher income women, and
    women who cannot bear their own children most likely to have adopted.
    However, marital status and income were not as important in predicting
    whether a woman would be interested in adoption.
        These findings raise questions about possible barriers to adoption.
    For example, never-married women who are interested in adoption may
    find that state policies or agency practices give preference to married
    couples as potential adoptive parents, and therefore, adoption is more
    difficult for never-married women to achieve. Similarly, poor women who
    want to adopt may have a harder time qualifying as potential adoptive
    parents, or may determine that adoption is beyond their economic means.
    These findings would lead some to argue that providing subsidies or tax
    credits to adoptive parents is appropriate, and that such assistance
    should be targeted toward lower income families. These findings may
    also have relevance for states, where policy and practice decisions are
    made regarding qualifications and preferences for adoptive parents.
    Finally, these findings suggest that more public information about
    adoption is needed, including information on subsidies and other forms
    of support services that may be available to adoptive parents.
        However, the low rate of adoptions among women who express interest
    in adoption may also be related to the types of children they want to
    adopt, and the extent to which such children are available for
    adoption. According to the most recent data on the total number of
    adoptions in the United States, 127,441 children were adopted in 1992,
    which is considerably fewer than the number of women who were seeking
    to adopt in 1995. Of these children, 42 percent were adopted by
    relatives or stepparents. Only 19,753 (or 16 percent) were children
    adopted from the foster care system.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Adoption Statistics Package, National Adoption Information
    Clearinghouse (http://www.calib.com/naic/adptsear/adoption/research/
    index.htm#Stats).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As of 1996, there were approximately 500,000 children in foster
    care, of which an estimated 16 percent had case plans of adoption.
    According to HHS data cited earlier, three-quarters of the children who
    were in foster care in 1996 were 6 years old or older. However, as this
    report has shown, there is a strong preference for infants and toddlers
    among potentially adoptive women. Moreover, potentially adoptive women
    generally prefer single children without disabilities. States develop
    adoption assistance agreements with parents who adopt eligible children
    with special needs under state and federal adoption assistance
    programs. Typically, special needs children are defined by states to
    include older children, those who are disabled or have other medical or
    emotional conditions, members of sibling groups, and racial or ethnic
    minorities. These are characteristics that, in general, might prevent
    the adoptive placement of a child without special assistance. The
    findings presented in this report are therefore consistent with the
    assumptions underlying the adoption assistance program authorized by
    Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which helps provide monthly
    subsidies to parents who adopt children with special needs, as defined
    by the states.
        The 1995 NSFG data indicate that a significant share of potentially
    adoptive women are indifferent regarding the race of an adoptive child.
    It should be noted that recently enacted legislation (Public Law 104-
    188) is intended to increase and expedite adoptions by prohibiting
    agencies from denying or delaying adoptions based on race. However,
    this finding raises some question about the definition of ``special
    needs'' in the Title IV-E adoption assistance program, which, in almost
    all states, also includes minority status. The adoption subsidy is
    intended to promote adoption for hard-to-place children, yet the NSFG
    data indicate that minority children may not necessarily be hard to
    place on the basis of their racial status alone.
        One of the primary purposes of the 1997 foster care and adoption
    reform legislation was to expedite the process of moving children
    through foster care and into permanent homes, with adoption as the
    preferred outcome for children who cannot return to their biological
    families. As discussed in this report, potential adoptive women
    strongly prefer infants, so it would appear desirable to make infants
    legally available for adoption as quickly as possible, consistent with
    the best interests of each individual child. However, because there
    appears to be little demand for older children among potential adoptive
    women, expediting the adoption of older children--including termination
    of their biological parents' rights--might result in the creation of
    legal orphans who remain in foster care, unless additional policies are
    developed to encourage their adoption.
        This report also found that income is a factor in determining
    whether women who are interested in adoption actually become adoptive
    parents. Subsidizing the costs of adoption may enable certain people to
    adopt who would otherwise be prevented. However, it is not clear
    whether such policies significantly increase the number of adoptions
    that occur, or merely subsidize the adoption of children who would be
    adopted anyway. For example, the cost of adopting children from foster
    care is considerably less than other types of adoptions, yet only a
    small percentage of adoptions are of foster children. Thus, at least
    for foster children, the income of a prospective adoptive woman may be
    less significant than other factors, such as the age or disability
    status of the child, the existence of siblings, or intangible factors
    such as public perceptions about children in the foster care system. At
    the same time, even fewer children might be adopted out of foster care
    in the absence of these subsidy programs.
        In sum, the implications for adoption policy of the NSFG data
    depend in large part on the goals of the policymakers. If the goal is
    to encourage more women who are interested in adoption to actually
    adopt children, policy responses might include targeted financial
    assistance, a review of state policies and practices that might
    discourage or prevent single women from adopting, and possibly support
    services for single or poor women who adopt children. However, if the
    vast majority of these women are seeking to adopt healthy infants as
    indicated by the 1995 NSFG data, there may not be sufficient children
    for them to adopt and the number of children adopted out of foster care
    might not necessarily increase.
        On the other hand, if the goal is to promote the adoption of foster
    children, policy responses might include a review of the Title IV-E
    Adoption Assistance Program, to determine whether assistance levels are
    sufficient to encourage adoptions of the hardest-to-place children
    (i.e., older children, disabled children, and children in sibling
    groups), and to determine whether racial status alone actually
    constitutes a ``special need.'' Policymakers may also want to consider
    whether additional support services, beyond financial assistance, might
    be needed to encourage the adoption of these children. Finally,
    policymakers may want to examine other data on individuals and families
    most likely to adopt hard-to-place children (typically their foster
    parents), and develop additional incentives and supports for such
    families to adopt these children.

                          Appendix A: Technical Notes

        The estimates in this report of women interested in adoption or who
    have adopted are from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG),
    a household survey of women of child-bearing age, 15 to 44 years of
    age. Interviews were conducted in January through October 1995 by the
    Research Triangle Institute Inc. under a contract of the National
    Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Information is from Cycle 5 of the NSFG; previous NSFG surveys
    were conducted in 1973, 1976, 1982, and 1988.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The NSFG is a multipurpose survey, but its main function is to
    collect data on factors affecting pregnancy and women's health.\20\ In
    the context of asking questions about factors affecting pregnancy, the
    survey asked women to respond to a series of questions about their
    interest in adopting a child or whether they had adopted a child. The
    information in this report is based in great part on those questions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ See: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention. Fertility, Family Planning, and Women's Health: New Data
    from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Series 23, no. 19. May
    1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 1995 NSFG interviewed a national sample of 10,847 women. This
    report's estimates are subject to certain limitations because they were
    derived from responses to interviews from a sample of women. Sample
    survey estimates are subject to both sampling error and nonsampling
    error.

    Sampling Error

        The estimates of this report are subject to error because they
    represent responses from a sample of women aged 15 to 44 years of age
    rather than all women of these ages. That is, from the responses given
    by the 10,847 women in the sample, estimates are made for the entire
    population of women aged 15 to 44 years of age which is estimated at
    over 60 million. Generally, sampling error is inversely related to
    sample size; that is, the larger the sample the smaller the sampling
    error.
        Adoption is a relatively rare occurrence in the population as a
    whole. This CRS report estimates that about 500,000 women of child-
    bearing age (15 to 44) were currently seeking adoption and also that
    about 500,000 women of child-bearing age (15 to 44) have adopted a
    child. These estimates are based on the responses of relatively few
    women (101 women for those currently seeking adoption; 84 women for
    those who ever adopted a child), and are thus subject to relatively
    large error. The sampling error for these estimates was reported in the
    text of this report. Moreover, subcategorizing these groups into income
    classes, marital status, etc., results in inferences being made based
    on even fewer women in the sample and are subject to even greater
    error. The results in this report that discuss characteristics of women
    who were currently seeking to adopt or interested in adoption must be
    used with caution because they are based on very small samples.
        On the other hand, the NSFG estimate of women who ``ever considered
    adoption'' of 12 million is based on a relatively large sample
    (responses from 2,380 women in the sample). Estimates on women who
    ``ever considered adoption'' are more precise than those for women
    currently seeking to adopt or who ever adopted a child.
    Estimates of Sampling Error
        Household surveys such as the NSFG are not simple random samples of
    the population of interest. They are ``complex'' samples, with some
    subpopulations ``oversampled'' compared to others. Therefore, estimates
    of sampling error must be made that take into account the sampling
    design used to conduct the survey. Sampling error for the NSFG survey
    was computed by CRS with the ``jacknife'' technique, using a computer
    program developed by Weststat Inc.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ For an overview of this computer program, see: Westat Inc. A
    User's Guide to WesVar PC. February 1997. Chapter 1, p. 1-12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sampling error was measured for estimates of subpopulations
    (``currently seeking to adopt''). It was also considered when
    determining whether some of the relationships in this report were
    ``statistically significant.'' Each of the relationships shown in Table
    2 in the report (for example, between income and the likelihood to
    consider adoption) were tested to determine whether observed
    differences between categories of women were due to chance (sampling
    error) or represented a statistically significant relationship. The
    test was conducted using the chi-squared test statistic. Table A-1
    shows these relationships.

     TABLE A-1.--STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL OF ADOPTION AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF
                                                          WOMEN
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Considered adoption
                                              Ever adopted            Currently seeking to      and would consider
                                                                             adopt                     again
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Income...........................  Significant...............  Significant..............  Significant.
    Age..............................  Significant...............  Significant..............  Significant.
    Formal marital status............  Significant...............  Not significant..........  Not significant.
    Education........................  Significant...............  Not significant..........  Significant.
    Race.............................  Not significant...........  Significant..............  Not significant.
    Ability to bear own child........  Significant...............  Significant..............  Significant.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: These relationships are based on the RS2 Chi-Squared statistics calculated using WesVarPC. They assume a
      95 percent confidence level.

        Further, given that adoption is a relatively rare occurrence, the
    magnitude of these relationships given the standard errors was
    examined. For example, there is a statistically significant
    relationship between income and whether the woman has adopted a child,
    is currently seeking to adopt a child, or has ever considered adopting
    a child and would consider adoption again. But the next question is
    whether there is a difference between the populations. While Table 2
    shows that 0.27 percent of women with an income at or below 150 percent
    of the federal poverty level have adopted and 0.82 percent are
    currently seeking to adopt, given the small sample and the fact that
    adoption is a relatively rare occurrence, these results were examined
    to verify that these differences in relationships were not absorbed by
    the standard errors. All results discussed in the text are real
    differences.

    Nonsampling Error

        Estimates in this report are subject to various types of
    nonsampling error. Nonsampling error occurs because of imperfect
    answers given by respondents of surveys. Imperfections in answers to
    survey questions can stem from imperfect recall to incorrect responses,
    to ambiguities in the questions asked in the survey. In many respects,
    nonsampling error is more problematic than sampling error. Given a
    sampling framework, methods are available to quantify the amount of
    sampling error associated with a population estimate. Nonsampling
    error, on the other hand, is difficult and sometimes impossible to
    quantify.

                                   Appendix B

    TABLE B-1.--PREFERENCES FOR CHILDREN OF WOMEN CURRENTLY SEEKING TO ADOPT
                                 A CHILD IN 1995
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent     Standard Error
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you could choose exactly the child
     you wanted, would you prefer to adopt:
        Sex:
            a girl?.........................           33.27            6.63
            a boy?..........................           21.16            5.99
            indifferent?....................           45.57            6.38
        Race:
            a black child?..................           13.75            4.78
            a white child?..................           28.80            6.15
            a child of some other race?.....           15.10            3.92
            indifferent?....................           42.35            5.88
        Age:
            a child younger than 2 years?...           57.52            5.49
            a 2-5 year old child?...........           28.12            5.30
            a 6-12 year old child?..........            6.84            2.69
            a child 13 years or older?......            0.53            0.53
            indifferent?....................            6.99            2.77
        Disability:
            a child with no disability?.....           54.20            6.53
            a child with a mild disability?.           24.79            5.44
            a child with a severe                       5.47            4.30
             disability?....................
            indifferent?....................           15.55            3.75
        Number of children:
            a single child?.................           64.72            6.47
            2 or more brothers and sisters             26.32            5.87
             at once?.......................
            indifferent?....................            8.97            3.02
        Religion:
            same religious background?......           17.06            4.10
            different religious background?.            6.75            3.39
            indifferent?....................           76.19            5.48
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on
      data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (standard errors
      computed using Westat's WesVarPC computer program). Detail may not sum
      to 100 due to rounding.

                                     ______

        Sex Discrimination and the United States Supreme Court: Recent
                     Developments in the Law--June 29, 1999

                                    ABSTRACT

        This report discusses the recent sex discrimination decisions of
    the United States Supreme Court. It focuses on legal challenges
    involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment
    discrimination), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
    (discrimination in schools), and the equal protection guarantees of the
    Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court's
    decisions in cases involving Title VII and Title IX are particularly
    noteworthy because they illustrate the Court's recognition of sexual
    harassment in both the workplace and the classroom. The Court's recent
    Title VII decisions also involve pregnancy discrimination and same-sex
    sexual harassment. This report will be updated by the development of
    additional case law.

                                    SUMMARY

        With its recent sex discrimination decisions, the United States
    Supreme Court has not only further defined the applicability of the
    equal protection guarantees of the Constitution and the
    nondiscriminatory policies of federal statutes, but has rejected the
    use of gender stereotypes and continued to recognize the discriminatory
    effect of gender hostility in the workplace and in schools. This report
    focuses on recent sex discrimination challenges based on the equal
    protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, Title VII
    of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination), and Title
    IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (discrimination in schools). The
    Court's decisions in cases involving Title VII and Title IX are
    particularly noteworthy because they illustrate the Court's recognition
    of sexual harassment in both the workplace and the classroom.
        Although the Court's analysis of sex discrimination challenges
    under the Constitution differs from its analysis of sex discrimination
    under the two federal statutes discussed in this report, it is apparent
    that the Court is willing to refine its standards of review under both
    schemes to accommodate the novel claims presented by these cases.

        SEX DISCRIMINATION AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: RECENT
                            DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW

        With its recent sex discrimination decisions, the United States
    Supreme Court has not only further defined the applicability of the
    equal protection guarantees of the Constitution and the
    nondiscriminatory policies of federal statutes, but has rejected the
    use of gender stereotypes and continued to recognize the discriminatory
    effect of gender hostility in the workplace and in schools. This report
    focuses on recent sex discrimination challenges based on the equal
    protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, Title VII
    of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education
    Amendments of 1972. Although the Court's analysis of sex discrimination
    challenges under the Constitution differs from its analysis of sex
    discrimination under the two federal statutes discussed in this report,
    it is apparent that the Court is willing to refine its standards of
    review under both schemes to accommodate the novel claims presented by
    these cases.

                             EQUAL PROTECTION CASES

        Constitutional challenges that allege discrimination on the basis
    of sex are premised either on the equal protection guarantees of the
    Fourteenth Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth
    Amendment. To maintain an equal protection challenge, government action
    must be established; that is, it must be shown that the government, and
    not a private actor, has acted in a discriminatory manner. While the
    Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discriminatory conduct by the states,
    the Fifth Amendment forbids such action by the federal government.
        The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part:

        ``No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
    privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor
    shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' U.S. CONST. amend. XIV
    (emphasis added).

        Although the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection, it
    does not preclude the classification of individuals. The Court has
    noted that the Constitution does not require things which are
    ``different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were
    the same.'' \1\ A classification will not offend the Constitution
    unless it is characterized by invidious discrimination.\2\ The Court
    has adopted three levels of review to establish the presence of
    invidious discrimination:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940).
        \2\ See Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 732 (1963).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Strict scrutiny.--This most active form of judicial review has been
            applied where there is either a suspect classification (e.g.
            race, national origin, alienage) or a burdening of a
            fundamental interest (e.g. privacy, marriage). A classification
            will survive strict scrutiny if the government can show that it
            is necessary to achieving a compelling interest.\3\ Most
            statutory classifications subject to strict scrutiny are
            invalidated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411
    U.S. 1 (1973).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Intermediate scrutiny.--This level of review is not as rigorous as
            strict scrutiny. A classification will survive intermediate
            scrutiny if it is substantially related to achieving an
            important government objective.\4\ Sex classifications are
            subject to intermediate scrutiny.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Rational basis review.--This least active form of judicial review
            allows a classification to survive an equal protection
            challenge if the classification is rationally related to a
            legitimate government interest.\5\ This level of review is
            characterized by its deference to legislative judgment. Most
            economic regulations are subject to rational basis review.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Lindsley v. National Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911);
    Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920); San Antonio School
    District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973); Mass Bd. of Retirement v.
    Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court's adoption of intermediate scrutiny for sex
    classifications did not occur until 1976. In Craig v. Boren, the Court
    declared unconstitutional an Oklahoma statute that prohibited the sale
    of ``nonintoxicating'' 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21
    and to females under the age of 18.\6\ Females above the age of 18, but
    below 21, were allowed to purchase this beer. Although the Court agreed
    with the state's argument that the protection of public health and
    safety is an important government interest, it found that the gender
    classification employed by the statute was not substantially related to
    achieving that goal. The statistical evidence presented by the state to
    show that more 18 to 20-year-old males were arrested for drunk driving
    and that males between the ages of 17 and 21 were overrepresented among
    those injured in traffic accidents could not establish that the
    statute's gender classification was substantially related to ensuring
    public health and safety.\7\ In addition to their methodological
    problems, the statistics failed to establish the dangerousness of
    nonintoxicating 3.2 percent beer for purposes of distinguishing between
    males and females.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
        \7\ The state also introduced the following: a random roadside
    survey that indicated that young males were more inclined to drive and
    drink beer than were their female equivalents; FBI nationwide
    statistics showing an increase in arrests for drunk driving; and
    similar statistics from other jurisdictions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In establishing an intermediate level of review for sex
    classifications, the Craig Court identified what has been a common
    theme in sex discrimination cases under the Fourteenth Amendment:
    stereotypes and generalizations about the sexes.\8\ In Craig, the Court
    acknowledged its previous invalidation of statutes that premised their
    classifications on misconceptions concerning the role of females. The
    Court's rejection of the use of stereotypes may be seen in many of the
    cases in this area.\9\ The Court's most recent decisions allude
    similarly to the use of stereotypes and generalizations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 429 U.S. at 198.
        \9\ See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) (Invalidated
    section of the Social Security Act that permitted survivors' benefits
    for male widows only if they were receiving half of their support from
    their wives); Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979) (Invalidated Alabama
    statute that imposed alimony obligations on husbands, but not wives);
    Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979) (Invalidated New York statute
    that required the consent of the mother, but not the father, to permit
    the adoption of an illegitimate child); Mississippi University for
    Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) (Invalidated policy of a state-
    supported university that limited admission to its nursing school to
    women on the grounds that it reinforced traditional stereotypes).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the Court determined that the state could not
    use its peremptory challenges to exclude male jurors in a paternity and
    child support action.\10\ In reaching its conclusion, the Court
    reviewed the historical exclusion of women from juries because of the
    belief that women were ``too fragile and virginal to withstand the
    polluted courtroom atmosphere.'' \11\ In J.E.B., the Court questioned
    the state's generalizations of male jurors being more sympathetic to
    the arguments of a father in a paternity action and female jurors being
    more receptive to the mother. The Court maintained that state actors
    who exercise peremptory challenges in reliance on gender stereotypes
    ``ratify and reinforce prejudicial views of the relative abilities of
    men and women.'' \12\ The Court feared that this discriminatory use of
    peremptory challenges would not only raise questions about the fairness
    of the entire proceedings, but also create the impression of the
    judicial system acquiescing in the denial of participation by one
    gender.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ 511 U.S. 127 (1994).
        \11\ 511 U.S. at 133.
        \12\ 511 U.S. at 141.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In U.S. v. Virginia, the Court conducted a more searching form of
    intermediate scrutiny to find unconstitutional the exclusion of women
    from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI).\13\ While articulating the
    need to show that a classification is substantially related to an
    important government interest, the Court also required the state to
    establish an ``exceedingly persuasive justification'' for its
    actions.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
        \14\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Virginia advanced two arguments in support of VMI's exclusion of
    women: first, the single-sex education offered by VMI contributed to a
    diversity of educational approaches in Virginia; second, VMI employed a
    unique adversative method of training that would be destroyed if women
    were admitted.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ See also Kimberly D. Jones, United States v. Virginia: The
    Constitutionality of Public Single-Sex Schools, CRS Report 96-924 A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After reviewing the history of Virginia's educational system, the
    Court concluded that VMI was not established or maintained to promote
    educational diversity. In fact, VMI's ``historic and constant plan''
    was to offer a unique educational benefit to only men.\16\ VMI was not
    meant to complement other Virginia institutions as a single-sex
    educational option. Further, the Court recognized Virginia's historic
    reluctance to allow women to pursue higher education. Any interest
    Virginia had in maintaining educational diversity seemed to be
    ``proffered in response to litigation.'' \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ 518 U.S. at 540.
        \17\ 518 U.S. at 533.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addressing Virginia's second argument, the Court expressed
    concern over the exclusion of women from VMI because of generalizations
    about their ability. While acknowledging that most women would probably
    not choose the adversative method, the Court maintained that some women
    had the will and capacity to succeed at VMI. Following J.E.B., the
    Court cautioned state actors to not rely on overbroad generalizations
    to perpetuate patterns of discrimination. While the Court believed that
    the adversative method did promote important goals, it concluded that
    the exclusion of women was not substantially related to achieving those
    goals.
        After determining that VMI's exclusion of women violated the
    Fourteenth Amendment, the Court reviewed the state's remedy, a separate
    program for women. Virginia established the Virginia Women's Institute
    for Leadership (VWIL) following the adverse decision of the court of
    appeals. Unlike VMI, VWIL did not use the adversative method because it
    was believed to be inappropriate for most women.\18\ VWIL lacked the
    faculty, facilities, and course offerings available at VMI. Because
    VWIL was not a comparable single-sex institution for women, the Court
    concluded that it was an inadequate remedy for the state's equal
    protection violations. VMI subsequently became coeducational.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ 518 U.S. at 549.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court addressed gender stereotypes in a third case involving
    immigration issues. In Miller v. Albright, the Court considered a
    challenge to Sec. 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\19\ The
    petitioner, the child of an American father and a Filipino mother,
    contended that Sec. 309 imposed additional requirements for
    establishing American citizenship when a child is fathered by an
    American citizen outside of the United States.\20\ For children born of
    a citizen mother and an alien father, citizenship is established at
    birth. However, for children born of a citizen father and an alien
    mother, citizenship is not established until the father or the child
    takes affirmative steps to confirm their relationship by the child's
    eighteenth birthday. In this case, the petitioner's father did not
    attempt to establish his relationship with his daughter until after her
    eighteenth birthday. Thus, the petitioner's application for citizenship
    was denied.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ 523 U.S. 420, 118 S.Ct. 1428 (1998).
        \20\ See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1409.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The case produced five different opinions. While six justices
    agreed that the petitioner's complaint should be dismissed, they
    provided different reasons for this conclusion. Justices Stevens and
    Rehnquist maintained that Sec. 309's distinction between
    ``illegitimate'' children of U.S. citizen mothers and ``illegitimate''
    children of U.S. citizen fathers is permissible because it is
    ``eminently reasonable and justified by important Government
    policies.'' \21\ Justices O'Connor and Kennedy contended, however, that
    the distinction could withstand only rational basis review and should
    not satisfy the kind of heightened scrutiny Justice Stevens seemed to
    conduct. Setting aside the issue of Sec. 309's constitutionality,
    Justices O'Connor and Kennedy believed that the petitioner lacked the
    standing necessary to even pursue her claim. Finally, Justices Scalia
    and Thomas contended that the petitioner's complaint should be
    dismissed because the Court lacks the power to confer citizenship.
    Having acknowledged that Congress has the exclusive authority to grant
    citizenship, Justices Scalia and Thomas believed that there was no need
    to address the constitutionality of Sec. 309. Justices Ginsberg,
    Breyer, and Souter dissented in opinions written by Justices Ginsberg
    and Breyer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ 118 S.Ct. at 1440.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In their separate opinions, Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg,
    and Breyer each addressed the petitioner's argument that Sec. 309
    invokes gender stereotypes. The petitioner contended that Sec. 309
    relies on the belief that an American father ``remains aloof from day-
    to-day child rearing duties,'' and will not be as close to his
    child.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ 118 S.Ct. at 1441.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Justice Stevens maintained that the statute has a non-stereotypical
    purpose of ensuring the existence of a blood relationship between
    father and child. Justice Stevens recognized that the distinction is
    reasonable because mothers have the opportunity to establish parentage
    at birth, while fathers do not always have that opportunity. Further,
    he contended that the distinction encourages the development of a
    healthy relationship between the citizen father and the foreign-born
    child, and fosters ties between the child and the United States. Thus,
    Sec. 309's additional requirements are appropriate for fathers, but
    unnecessary for mothers.
        In their dissenting opinions, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer
    contended that Sec. 309 relies on generalizations about men and women
    and the ties they maintain with their children. Justice Ginsberg argued
    that Sec. 309's goals of assuring ties between the citizen father and
    the foreign-born child, and between the child and the United States can
    be achieved without reference to gender. Justice Breyer argued
    similarly, positing a distinction between caretaker and non-caretaker
    parents, rather than mother and father.
        While the Court's recent decisions involving sex and equal
    protection illustrate that it is concerned with the stereotyping of men
    and women, it is unclear whether it will continue to subject sex
    classifications and any related stereotypes to a traditional form of
    intermediate scrutiny. The Court's requirement of an ``exceedingly
    persuasive justification'' in VMI suggests that it may be interested in
    conducting a more exacting form of judicial review for sex
    classifications. In his Miller dissent, Justice Breyer emphasized the
    need to apply the standard established in VMI. Should the Court move
    definitively toward a higher level of judicial review, it is possible
    that sex may be considered a suspect classification like race, national
    origin, or alienage. However, even if that does not occur, the Court's
    decision in VMI suggests that equal protection analysis may be moving
    toward only two levels of review: heightened scrutiny and rational
    basis review.

                   TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

        Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any
    individual with respect to hiring or the terms and condition of
    employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or
    national origin.\23\ Sex discrimination cases under Title VII have
    involved sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and wage
    disparities among employees.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Title VII provides, in relevant part, that it is an unlawful
    employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to
    discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
    individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
    privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color,
    religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or
    classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which
    would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
    opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,
    because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
    origin. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2.
        \24\ See also Karen J. Lewis, Sex Discrimination and the United
    States Supreme Court Developments in the Law, CRS Report 89-500A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court has developed two principal models for proving claims of
    employment discrimination.\25\ The ``disparate treatment'' model
    focuses on an employer's intent to discriminate. Alternately, the
    ``disparate impact'' model is concerned with the adverse effects of an
    employer's practices on a protected class. Disparate impact analysis
    may find a facially neutral employment practice to be violative of
    Title VII even without evidence of the employer's subjective intent to
    discriminate. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the
    application of a specific employment practice has had a disparate
    impact on a particular group of employees.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ See also Charles V. Dale, The Civil Rights Act of 1991: A
    Legal Analysis of Various Proposals to Reform the Federal Equal
    Employment Opportunity Laws, CRS Report 91-757A.
        \26\ See also Ward's Cove Packing Company v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642
    (1989).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis involve a
    system of evidentiary burden shifting. Both models require the
    plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If such a
    case can be established, the burden shifts to the employer to
    articulate a defense for its actions. At that point, the employer may
    produce evidence showing that its actions are justified because of the
    needs of its business. Alternately, the employer may contend that
    otherwise discriminatory conduct satisfies a bona fide occupational
    qualification (BFOQ). Under Sec. 703(e)(1) of Title VII, an employer
    may discriminate on the basis of ``religion, sex, or national origin in
    those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a
    bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal
    operation of that particular business or enterprise.'' \27\ Ultimately,
    however, the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion; that is, the
    plaintiff must disprove the employer's assertion that the adverse
    employment action or practice is based on business necessity or is a
    BFOQ.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(e)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pregnancy Discrimination
        In recent years, the Court has addressed Title VII and sex
    discrimination most frequently in the context of sexual harassment. In
    UAW v. Johnson Controls, however, the Court considered whether an
    employer may discriminate against fertile women because of its interest
    in protecting potential fetuses.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ 499 U.S. 187 (1991). See also Gina M. Stevens, Sex-Based
    Discrimination: UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., CRS Report 91-323A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Johnson Controls, a battery manufacturer, implemented a policy that
    excluded ``women who are pregnant or who are capable of bearing
    children'' from jobs that exposed them to lead.\29\ Lead was the
    primary ingredient in the manufacturing process at Johnson Controls.
    Although fertile women were excluded from employment, fertile men were
    still permitted to work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ 499 U.S. at 192.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court found that Johnson Controls' policy was facially
    discriminatory because it did not apply to the reproductive capacity of
    the company's male employees in the same way it applied to that of
    female employees. The Court's conclusion was bolstered by the Pregnancy
    Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which provides that discrimination
    ``on the basis of sex'' for purposes of violating Title VII includes
    discrimination ``because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth,
    or related medical conditions.'' \30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(k).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although Johnson Controls asserted that sex was a BFOQ for
    protecting fetal safety, the Court maintained that discrimination on
    the basis of sex for safety concerns is allowed only in narrow
    circumstances.\31\ The Court stressed that to qualify as a BFOQ, an
    employment practice must relate to the essence or central mission of
    the employer's business.\32\ Because the potential fetuses of Johnson
    Controls' females employees were not customers or third parties whose
    safety was essential to the business of battery manufacturing, the
    Court rejected Johnson Controls' BFOQ defense.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ 499 U.S. at 202.
        \32\ See Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) (Court found sex
    to be a BFOQ because the employment of a female guard in a maximum-
    security male penitentiary could create a risk of violence and
    jeopardize the safety of inmates); Western Airlines, Inc. v. Criswell,
    472 U.S. 400 (1985) (Court found age to be a BFOQ in an ADEA case
    because the employment of an older flight engineer could cause a safety
    emergency and jeopardize the safety of passengers).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sexual Harassment

        Courts have recognized two forms of sexual harassment under Title
    VII. The first, quid pro quo sexual harassment, occurs when submission
    to unwelcome sexual advances or other conduct of a sexual nature is
    made a condition of an individual's employment or is otherwise used as
    the basis for employment decisions. The second form of harassment
    involves conduct that has the purpose or effect of interfering
    unreasonably with an individual's work performance or of creating a
    hostile or offensive working environment. This second form of sexual
    harassment is referred to as ``hostile environment'' sexual harassment.
        In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., the Court sought to define
    when a workplace was sufficiently ``hostile'' for purposes of
    maintaining a claim under Title VII.\33\ The petitioner, a female
    manager at an equipment rental company, alleged that the company's
    president created a hostile environment by repeatedly insulting her
    because of her gender and making her the target of unwanted sexual
    innuendos.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court determined that an employee does not need to suffer
    injury to assert a hostile environment claim under Title VII: ``So long
    as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as
    hostile or abusive * * * there is no need for it also to be
    psychologically injurious.'' \34\ While the Court recognized that a
    standard based on the perceptions of a reasonable person is not
    ``mathematically precise,'' it emphasized both the need to consider all
    of the circumstances and the fact that Title VII does not require
    concrete psychological harm.\35\ The Court identified four factors that
    should be considered to determine whether a hostile environment exists:
    (1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) the severity of
    such conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or
    humiliating; and (4) whether the conduct interferes unreasonably with
    an employee's work performance.\36\ Although the Court recognized these
    factors as those to be considered in identifying a hostile environment,
    it emphasized that no single factor is determinative.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ 510 U.S. at 22.
        \35\ Id.
        \36\ 510 U.S. at 23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court continued its examination of hostile environment sexual
    harassment in two cases involving vicarious liability. In Faragher v.
    City of Boca Raton, the Court found that an employer is vicariously
    liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, subject to
    an affirmative defense that must consider the reasonableness of the
    employer's conduct, as well as the conduct of the employee.\37\ The
    petitioner, a former lifeguard for the Marine Safety Section of Boca
    Raton's Parks and Recreation Department, alleged that she was subject
    to an environment characterized by lewd remarks, gender-biased speech,
    and uninvited and offensive touching by her former supervisors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The petitioner pursued three lines of reasoning drawn from agency
    law to argue that the City was vicariously liable for the hostile
    environment created by the supervisors. First, the petitioner contended
    that the supervisors were acting within the scope of their employment
    when they engaged in the harassing conduct. Second, the petitioner
    argued that in creating a hostile environment the supervisors were
    aided by their supervisory authority. Third, the petitioner claimed
    that the City was negligent for failing to prevent the harassment by
    the supervisors.
        In addressing the petitioner's first argument, the Court conceded
    that a supervisor is responsible for maintaining a productive and safe
    work environment. However, the Court also contended that it was
    unlikely that Congress wished courts to ignore the traditional
    distinction between acts falling within the scope of employment and
    those amounting to what ``older law'' recognized as frolics or
    detours.\38\ The Court concluded that when a supervisor expresses his
    sexual interests ``in ways having no apparent object whatever of
    serving an interest of the employer,'' such harassment should be
    classified as beyond the scope of employment and should not impose
    liability on the employer.\39\ Further, the Court stated that if
    employers were liable for the hostile environments created by
    supervisors under a ``scope of employment'' theory, it would be just as
    appropriate to find liability when such an environment was created by
    co-workers. The Court expressed reluctance to recognize such liability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ 118 S.Ct. at 2288.
        \39\ 118 S.Ct. at 2289.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although the Court rejected the petitioner's scope of employment
    argument, it was persuaded that the supervisors were aided in creating
    a hostile environment by their superior positions. The Court recognized
    that the authority conferred as a result of a supervisor's relationship
    with the employer allows the supervisor greater ability to act
    inappropriately: ``When a person with supervisory authority
    discriminates in the terms and conditions of subordinates' employment,
    his actions necessarily draw upon his superior position over the people
    who report to him * * * whereas an employee generally cannot check a
    supervisor's abusive conduct the same way that she might deal with
    abuse from a co-worker.'' \40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ 118 S.Ct. at 2291.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the Court recognized that there could be vicarious liability
    for the misuse of supervisory authority, it established the
    availability of an affirmative defense for employers. This affirmative
    defense would consist of the employer's assertion that it exercised
    reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior.
    In addition, the affirmative defense would maintain that the employee
    unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective
    opportunities provided by the employer. The Court believed that the
    employer's ability to assert such an affirmative defense was consistent
    with Title VII's objective of encouraging employers to prevent sexual
    harassment from occurring.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ 118 S.Ct. at 2292.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After applying its new rules to the case at bar, the Court
    concluded that the City did not exercise reasonable care to prevent the
    supervisors' harassing conduct. Although the City maintained a policy
    against sexual harassment, it failed to disseminate that policy to
    beach employees. Further, the City made no attempt to monitor the
    conduct of the supervisors or assure employees that they could bypass
    harassing supervisors to register complaints.
        The Court addressed briefly the petitioner's third argument of the
    City's negligence by contending that the regulations of the Equal
    Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) require that employers take
    steps to prevent Title VII violations. The existence of such
    regulations established that the City had a duty to prevent the
    harassment. Although the City did adopt an antiharassment policy in
    1986, it failed to implement the policy with respect to beach
    employees.
        The Court revisited the issue of vicarious liability for employers
    in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, a companion case to Faragher.\42\
    In Burlington Industries, the Court maintained that an employer may be
    found vicariously liable for harassment by a supervisor even if the
    employee suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The petitioner in Burlington Industries alleged that she was
    subjected to repeated offensive remarks and gestures by a mid-level
    manager who supervised the petitioner's immediate supervisor. On three
    occasions, the manager made remarks that could be construed as threats
    to deny the petitioner job benefits. For example, the manager
    encouraged the petitioner to ``loosen up'' because he ``could make
    [her] life very hard or very easy at Burlington.'' \43\ Although
    Burlington maintained a policy against sexual harassment, the
    petitioner did not inform anyone in authority about the manager's
    misconduct. Instead, the petitioner resigned from her position,
    providing reasons unrelated to the harassment. Three weeks after her
    resignation, the petitioner informed Burlington of her true reasons for
    leaving.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ 118 S.Ct. at 2262.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the manager's threats suggested that the claim should be
    analyzed as a quid pro quo claim, the Court categorized it as a hostile
    environment claim because it involved only unfulfilled threats. After
    reviewing the petitioner's claim in terms similar to Faragher, the
    Court determined that the manager at Burlington also misused his
    supervisory authority. The Court concluded that Burlington should be
    given the opportunity to assert and prove an affirmative defense to
    liability.
        The availability of punitive damages for violations of Title VII
    was recently addressed by the Court in Kolstad v. American Dental
    Association.\44\ In Kolstad, the Court continued to build on its
    holdings in Faragher and Burlington Industries by concluding that
    although an employer may be vicariously liable for the misconduct of
    its supervisory employees, it will not be subject to punitive damages
    if it has made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. The Court
    noted that subjecting employers that adopt antidiscrimination policies
    to punitive damages would undermine Title VII's objective of
    encouraging employers to prevent discrimination in the workplace.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ No. 98-208, 1999 WL 407481 (U.S. June 22, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Same-Sex Sexual Harassment

        In 1998, the Court interpreted Title VII's prohibition against
    discrimination ``because of * * * sex'' to include harassment involving
    a plaintiff and defendant of the same sex.\45\ The petitioner in Oncale
    v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. alleged that he was physically
    assaulted in a sexual manner and was threatened with rape by three male
    co-workers.\46\ Two of the co-workers had supervisory authority over
    the petitioner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2.
        \46\ 523 U.S. 75, 77 (1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although the Court acknowledged that Congress was ``assuredly'' not
    concerned with male-on-male sexual harassment when it enacted Title
    VII, it found no justification in the statutory language or the Court's
    precedents for excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage
    of Title VII.\47\ At the same time, the Court stated that inquiries in
    same-sex harassment cases require careful consideration of the social
    context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by the
    claimant. For example, the Court distinguished a football player being
    patted on the butt in a locker room from similar behavior occurring in
    an office. The Court contended that this kind of consideration would
    prevent Title VII from becoming a ``general civility code'' for the
    American workplace.\48\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ 523 U.S. at 79.
        \48\ 523 U.S. at 80.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

        Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits
    discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and
    activities that receive federal funding. Until recently, Title IX
    claims have been most common among women and girls challenging
    inequities in sports programs.\49\ Title IX is now used as a vehicle
    for challenging sexual harassment in classrooms and on campuses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ See also Kimberly Jones, Sexual Harassment in Education:
    Recent Legal Developments Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of
    1972, CRS Report 98-798A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Title IX provides, in relevant part, that ``[n]o person in the
    United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
    participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
    discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
    Federal financial assistance * * *.'' \50\ The Court's recent decisions
    involving Title IX address various issues, including the availability
    of damages and who may be subject to liability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, a student in the
    Gwinnett County School District sought monetary damages for violation
    of Title IX.\51\ The petitioner argued that she had been subjected to
    continual sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher employed by the
    school district. Although the harassment became known and an
    investigation was conducted, teachers and administrators did not act
    and the petitioner was subsequently discouraged from pressing charges.
    Following Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, the case in which the Court
    first recognized hostile environment sexual harassment as a cognizable
    claim under Title VII, the Court in Franklin concluded that when a
    teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student, the teacher
    discriminates similarly on the basis of sex.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
        \52\ 503 U.S. at 75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court contended that absent clear direction to the contrary,
    the federal courts could award any appropriate relief in an action
    brought pursuant to a federal statute. Thus, because Title IX was
    silent on the issue of monetary damages, the Court found that they were
    available for the student.
        In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Court
    determined that a school district will not be held liable under Title
    IX for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student if the school
    district did not have actual notice of the harassment and did not
    exhibit deliberate indifference to the misconduct.\53\ The petitioner,
    a female high school student, was involved in a sexual relationship
    with one of her teachers. Unlike the situation in Franklin, the school
    district did not have actual notice of any sexual relationship between
    the petitioner and the teacher until they were discovered by a police
    officer. The principal of the petitioner's school did learn of
    inappropriate comments made by the teacher prior to the discovery, but
    he cautioned the teacher about such comments. After the sexual
    relationship became known, the school district quickly terminated the
    teacher. Despite the school district's actions, the petitioner argued
    that the school district should be found liable on the basis of
    vicarious liability or constructive notice.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ 524 U.S. 274, 118 S.Ct. 1989 (1998).
        \54\ Under a theory of constructive notice, liability would be
    established on the grounds that the school district knew or should have
    known about the harassment, but failed to discover and eliminate it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In requiring the school district to have actual notice of the
    harassment, the Court discussed the absence of an express cause of
    action under Title IX. Unlike Title VII, Title IX does not address
    damages or the particular situations in which damages are
    available.\55\ While Title IX does address a denial of funds for
    noncompliance with its provisions, it does not provide for a private
    right of action. Instead, a private right of action has been judicially
    implied.\56\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ 118 S.Ct. at 1996.
        \56\ See also Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because Title IX does not contain any reference to the recovery of
    damages in private actions, the Court reasoned that its recognition of
    theories of vicarious liability and constructive notice would allow an
    unlimited recovery where Congress has not spoken.\57\ Stated
    differently, the Court was reluctant to expand the availability of
    damages for such theories when Title IX failed to provide initially for
    a private cause of action. In this way, the Court sought to refine its
    holding in Franklin and limit those situations in which a remedy for
    damages would lie.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ 118 S.Ct. at 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court believed that Title IX's remedial scheme would be
    undermined if it did not require that a school district have actual
    notice of a teacher's sexual harassment. Sec. 902 of Title IX states
    that financial assistance will not be denied until the ``appropriate
    person or persons'' have been advised of the discrimination and have
    failed to end the discrimination voluntarily.\58\ An ``appropriate
    person'' is an official of the entity receiving funds who has the
    authority to take corrective action.\59\ Because the school district in
    Gebser did not have actual notice of the sexual relationship, it could
    not have taken any steps to end the alleged discrimination.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1682.
        \59\ 118 S.Ct. at 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, the Court stated that damages will not be available
    unless it is shown that a response exhibits a deliberate indifference
    to the discrimination; that is, there must be ``an official decision by
    the recipient not to remedy the violation.'' \60\ In Gebser, the school
    district responded to the situation by first cautioning the teacher,
    and then terminating him once the relationship was discovered. Thus,
    the Court concluded that the school district did not act with
    deliberate indifference.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \60\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, the Court
    found that a private organization is not subject to Title IX simply
    because it receives payments from entities that receive federal
    financial assistance.\61\ The respondent, a female graduate student,
    alleged that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
    discriminated against her on the basis of sex by denying her permission
    to play intercollegiate volleyball at two federally assisted
    institutions. Under NCAA rules, a graduate student is permitted to
    participate in intercollegiate athletics at only the institution that
    awarded her undergraduate degree. The respondent graduated from one
    university, but enrolled at two different universities for her graduate
    degree. The respondent argued that the NCAA granted more waivers from
    eligibility restrictions to male graduate students than to female
    graduate students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ No. 98-84, 1999 WL 83907 (U.S. Feb. 23, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court concluded that the NCAA was not a recipient of Title IX
    funds. The NCAA did not receive federal assistance either directly or
    through an intermediary. Instead, it received dues payments from member
    institutions. The Court stated, ``[a]t most, the Association's receipt
    of dues demonstrates that it indirectly benefits from the federal
    assistance afforded its members. This showing, without more, is
    insufficient to trigger Title IX coverage.'' \62\ Because the Court
    found that the NCAA was not amenable to suit, it did not address the
    respondent's substantive allegations of discrimination.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ 1999 WL 83907 at 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Recently, the Court recognized student-on-student sexual harassment
    as a cognizable claim under Title IX. In Davis v. Monroe County Board
    of Education, a mother alleged that her daughter suffered
    discrimination as a result of the Monroe County Board of Education's
    (``Board'') failure to respond to the misconduct of another
    student.\63\ While LaShonda, the petitioner's daughter, was in the
    fifth grade, a male student allegedly made vulgar remarks to her and
    touched her in an inappropriate manner. Although the petitioner and
    LaShonda notified the principal and several teachers, the misconduct
    continued. The male student was never disciplined for his actions. In
    addition, no effort was made to separate LaShonda and the male student
    in classes. The petitioner alleged that LaShonda's grades dropped as a
    result of the harassment. It appears that LaShonda also contemplated
    suicide because of the male student's continued misconduct.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ No. 97-843, 1999 WL 320808 (U.S. May 24, 1999).
        \64\ Id. at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Board maintained that the Court should not find a private
    damages action under Title IX for student-on-student harassment because
    the statute proscribes only misconduct by grant recipients. Title IX
    was enacted pursuant to Congress' spending power. In interpreting such
    spending legislation, courts have generally insisted that recipients of
    federal funding have adequate notice of misconduct that could
    jeopardize their funding.\65\ Because Title IX proscribes only
    misconduct by grant recipients, the Board argued that it did not have
    notice of a possible claim for misconduct by a third party.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ 1999 WL 320808 at 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, the Court maintained that a private damages action could
    exist when a funding recipient intentionally violates the clear intent
    of Title IX. In Gebser, for example, the Court determined that a school
    district could be liable for the misconduct of a teacher if the school
    district remained deliberately indifferent to the misconduct. Here,
    LaShonda's school knew about the harassment and did nothing to address
    it. In addition, the Court contended that the federal regulatory scheme
    surrounding Title IX and existing tort law provide examples of schools
    being liable for the misconduct of third parties. Thus, there was
    adequate notice that such misconduct could result in liability.
        The Court concluded that recipients of federal funding may be
    liable for subjecting their students to discrimination where the
    recipient is deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-
    student harassment and the harasser is under the school's disciplinary
    authority. In identifying the level of harassment necessary to state an
    actionable claim, the Court stated that the harassment must be ``so
    severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to
    deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or
    benefits provided by the school.'' \66\ The Court rejected the
    possibility of students using Title IX to remedy teasing or name-
    calling by contending that the misconduct must be serious enough to
    have a systemic effect of denying the victim equal access to an
    educational program or activity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ 1999 WL 320808 at 14.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the development of sex discrimination law under Title IX owes
    much to Title VII, the Davis Court's recognition of student-on-student
    harassment highlights dramatic differences between the two statutes. As
    suggested by the dissent in Davis, any analogies between student-on-
    student harassment cases and Title VII hostile environment cases are
    inappropriate because ``schools are not workplaces and children are not
    adults.'' \67\ For that reason, any import of Title VII hostile
    environment analysis should be done with caution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ 1999 WL 320808 at 27.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, the dissent recognized that while there is a cap on money
    damages under Title VII, no such cap exists for private causes of
    action under Title IX. Thus, a plaintiff could seek damages close to
    the amount designated originally to a school district. For example,
    Monroe County received approximately $679,000 in federal aid in 1992-
    93.\68\ Davis sought $500,000 in damages.\69\ The dissent maintained
    that this ``limitless liability'' under Title IX would put schools in a
    far worse position than businesses.\70\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ 1999 WL 320808 at 32.
        \69\ Id.
        \70\ 1999 WL 320808 at 32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, unlike Title VII, Title IX has no provision for agency
    investigation. Thus, Title IX does not contain a mechanism for weeding
    out frivolous claims and settling meritorious ones at minimal costs.
    While Congress could consider the creation of an agency like the EEOC
    to handle initial investigations under Title IX, such action could
    possibly move Title IX closer to Title VII, reducing the distinctions
    between classroom and workplace.
                                     ______

         The Department of Energy's Spallation Neutron Source Project:
                   Description and Issues--December 10, 1999

                                    ABSTRACT

        This CRS report focuses on the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a
    new Department of Energy-funded research facility, which is scheduled
    for construction at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in eastern
    Tennessee. The facility is intended to generate and use pulsed neutron
    beams to study the structural properties of a wide range of materials.
    The report describes the SNS's management, project costs, schedule,
    site selection, and funding, and discusses issues raised by some
    congressional critics of the project, such as management problems,
    potential cost overruns, and schedule delays. Technical information
    about the project as well as excerpts from relevant legislation are
    appended. The report will be updated as appropriate.

                                    SUMMARY

        The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing construction of
    the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a new $1.36 billion research
    facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in eastern Tennessee. The
    project is a collaboration of five national laboratories: Oak Ridge
    (ORNL), Argonne (ANL), Brookhaven (BNL), Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL), and
    Los Alamos (LANL). The facility is intended to generate and use pulsed
    neutron beams to study the structural properties of a wide range of
    materials. After its scheduled completion in December 2005, the
    facility would be the world's most powerful neutron source of its kind.
    Many scientists argue that the SNS will provide U.S. science and
    industry with an essential tool to compete with Europe and Japan in
    broad areas of the physical, chemical, and biological sciences, as well
    as in the development and testing of new materials.
        In fiscal year 1999, Congress gave DOE permission to begin some
    design and construction work and appropriated $130 million. During
    fiscal year 2000 budget negotiations, congressional critics of the
    SNS's management threatened to withhold further authorization for
    construction funds unless DOE would take significant steps to
    strengthen project management. In conference, Congress appropriated
    $117.9 million, including $100 million for construction. Although
    significantly less than the DOE's fiscal year 2000 SNS budget request
    of $214 million, the appropriated amount permits the project's
    continuation during fiscal year 2000.
        While most scientists contend that the SNS's scientific merits are
    undisputed, some critics have pointed to weaknesses in the project's
    management. DOE states that SNS project management has been
    strengthened in recent months with the selection of a new and
    experienced leadership team. However, two problems remain that might
    jeopardize further congressional support: difficulties in developing
    one of the project's pivotal technical components, its linear
    accelerator; and a Tennessee tax imposed on the project's construction.
    Concerned about potential cost overruns and schedule delays, some in
    Congress are arguing for close congressional oversight to help ensure
    the SNS's successful completion on schedule and within budget.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), a new research facility funded
    by the Department of Energy (DOE), is scheduled to be constructed at
    the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in east central Tennessee.\1\ The
    project is the collaboration of five DOE national laboratories:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For general information about the Spallation Neutron Source see
    Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: The next-generation
    neutron scattering facility for the United States (1998); see also the
    project's website [http://www.ornl.gov/sns/].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee
      --Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, Illinois
      --Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, New York
      --Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, California
      --Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico
        Each of the five laboratories is responsible for developing and
    constructing one of the major components for the SNS. With a projected
    total cost of $1.36 billion, the SNS would be the most expensive
    civilian DOE facility under construction since the cancellation of the
    Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in 1993. The DOE developed the SNS
    concept beginning in the mid-1990s, after it abandoned a more ambitious
    neutron source project at Oak Ridge, the Advanced Neutron Source
    (ANS).\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Advanced Neutron Source, a reactor-based facility, faced
    congressional opposition primarily because of its high price, estimated
    to be $3 billion. In addition, nonproliferation advocates criticized
    the project for its planned use of highly enriched uranium. See Barbara
    Goss Levi, ``The Advanced Neutron Source Knocks at the Door of
    Congress,'' Physics Today (November 1994), 17-19; Daniel Clery and
    Andrew Lawler, ``The Looming Neutron Gap,'' Science (17 February 1995),
    952-954; Faye Flam, ``Panel Hopes Compromise Will Bail Out Neutron
    Source,'' Science (18 November 1994), 1160-1161.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The SNS, which is scheduled to become operational by December 2005,
    is designed to be the world's most powerful neutron source of its
    kind.\3\ Neutrons are subatomic particles that have become essential
    tools in studying broad areas of the physical, chemical, and biological
    sciences, as well as aiding the development and testing of new
    materials. Much like x-rays or electrons, neutron beams can be used to
    probe the structure of physical and biological materials, acting like a
    high-resolution ``microscope.'' Experiments conducted with the SNS are
    expected to advance scientific disciplines such as materials science,
    solid state physics, engineering, chemistry, and structural biology.
    Many scientists expect that the SNS will lead to a wide range of
    improved materials used in every day products such as cars, airplanes,
    computers, and drugs [see Appendix A for additional information on the
    technology and applications of the SNS].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Neutron beams can be produced in two different ways, either by
    a particle accelerator or by a nuclear reactor (see Appendix A). The
    SNS is an accelerator-based facility. Currently, the most powerful
    operating accelerator-based neutron source is ISIS at the Rutherford
    Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, England. SNS, with an expected beam
    power of 2 megawatts, will have more than 10 times the beam power of
    ISIS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many leading U.S. scientists have long called for a new neutron
    source in the United States.\4\ Currently, six neutron sources operate
    in the United States,\5\ but most scientists have pointed out that
    these sources are out-of-date and inferior to facilities in Europe and
    Japan.\6\ DOE evaluated three possible approaches to remedy the
    situation: upgrading existing facilities, buying access time at
    European facilities, and constructing a new powerful neutron source in
    the United States. While some upgrades of existing facilities are
    planned, they will not reach the beam power required for some essential
    research areas. Access for U.S. researchers to European facilities is
    limited since the best sources are already oversubscribed by the host
    nations. In addition, some foreign facilities might not be inclined to
    support U.S. research involving neutron sources, which is directly
    linked to industrial competitiveness. Many scientists agree that the
    SNS could help U.S. science and industry to regain a competitive
    position in research and development areas that depend on powerful
    neutron beams.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Research Council, Neutron Research on Condensed Matter
    (1977); National Academy of Sciences, Major Facilities for Materials
    Research and Related Disciplines (1984); Department of Energy, Basic
    Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), Neutron Sources of
    America's Future (January 1993), DOE/ER-0576P; BESAC, Neutron Sources
    and Applications (January 1994), DOE/ER-0607P; BESAC, Report of the
    Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee on Neutron Source Facility
    Upgrades and the Technical Specifications for the Spallation Neutron
    Source (March 1998).
        \5\ Neutron sources in the United States: LANSCE (Los Alamos) and
    IPNS (Argonne) are spallation neutron sources; HFIR (Oak Ridge), NBSR
    (National Institute of Science and Technology), MURR (University of
    Missouri), and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) are reactor
    neutron sources. The four reactors were designed and constructed in the
    1950s and 1960s. The most recent U.S. reactor for neutron scattering
    research, NBSR, began routine operation in 1969. On November 16, 1999,
    Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson closed the High Flux Beam Reactor
    (HFBR) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, which had provided scientists
    with a neutron beam since the mid-1960s. For a list of present and
    future neutron sources worldwide see DOE, Construction and Operation of
    the Spallation Neutron Source Facility, Final Environmental Impact
    Statement, Volume 1, DOE/EIS-0247, p.1-5.
        \6\ European countries, including France, England, Germany, and
    Italy, among others, are designing a European Spallation Source (ESS),
    with an expected average beam power of 5 megawatts, more than double
    the SNS's 2 megawatts. However, the ESS is only in the research and
    development phase and will not be completed, if constructed at all, in
    the near future. No site for the facility has been selected yet. In
    contrast, the SNS was designed to become operational as soon as
    possible. Therefore, the design mostly relies on proven technologies
    that avoid costly and time consuming research and development of
    components. For the ESS see [http://www.kfa-juelich.de/ess/].
        \7\ Department of Energy, Report of the Basic Energy Sciences
    Advisory Committee on Neutron Source Facility Upgrades and the
    Technical Specifications for the Spallation Neutron Source (March
    1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Management

        The Spallation Neutron Source is a collaborative effort of five
    national laboratories: Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Brookhaven, Lawrence
    Berkeley, and Argonne, all of which have participated in the SNS's
    design. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which leads the collaboration,
    is currently managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation. In
    April 2000, Lockheed Martin will be replaced by a new contractor, the
    University of Tennessee in cooperation with Battelle Memorial
    Institute.
        The SNS management structure involves the DOE Office of Science,
    which provides overall guidance, DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Office, the
    SNS Project Office, and the five participating national laboratories
    and their local DOE operations offices.\8\ Unlike the other four
    laboratories involved in the SNS, Los Alamos National Laboratory
    reports to DOE's Defense Programs and not directly to the Office of
    Science. Interactions between various DOE agencies and the
    participating laboratories are guided by Memoranda of Agreement
    (MOAs).\9\ Following a critical review of the SNS management in January
    1999,\10\ DOE selected a new leadership team, including a new SNS
    Executive Director, Dr. David E. Moncton. On November 18, 1999,
    Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson assigned primary authority and
    responsibility for project execution to Moncton.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ For a detailed description of SNS management structure see
    Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: Project Execution
    Plan, approved by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on November 18,
    1999, Appendix C.
        \9\ Memorandum of Agreement between the Office of Science and
    Defense Programs for the Spallation Neutron Source, signed February 26,
    1998; Memorandum of Agreement between Oak Ridge Operations Office,
    Spallation Neutron Source Project Office, and the Argonne Group,
    Berkeley Site Office, Brookhaven Group, and Los Alamos Area Office,
    signed July 9, 1999; Memorandum of Agreement between the Spallation
    Neutron Source Project and Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven
    National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Los Alamos
    National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, signed October
    18, 1999. These three memoranda are included in Department of Energy,
    Spallation Neutron Source: Project Execution Plan, approved by
    Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on November 18, 1999.
        \10\ Department of Energy, Technical, Cost, Schedule, and
    Management Review of the Spallation Neutron Source Project (January
    1999).
        \11\ Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Execution Plan, approved by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on
    November 18, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Project Cost and Schedule

        Conceptual design activities for the SNS began in November 1995. In
    June 1997, a DOE review validated the project's design. The expected
    total cost of $1.266 billion was judged to be credible, but the
    reviewers felt that the construction schedule of six years, with
    completion scheduled for September 2004, was too optimistic.\12\ Since
    February 1999, total project cost has remained level at $1.36 billion.
    The SNS is now scheduled to become fully operational in December 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Department of Energy, Department of Energy Review of the
    National Spallation Neutron Source Project, June 1997. Secretary of
    Energy Pena approved the SNS technical, cost, and schedule baselines on
    December 23, 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Site Selection

        In April 1999, the DOE issued an Environmental Impact Statement
    (EIS), which discussed potential environmental consequences of the
    SNS's construction and long-time operation.\13\ Possible sites for the
    project included Oak Ridge, the DOE's preferred location, and
    alternative sites at Los Alamos, Argonne, and Brookhaven. While the EIS
    did not determine any unacceptable environmental consequences at any of
    the four sites, it concluded in favor of Oak Ridge. Following this
    assessment, Secretary Richardson announced in June 1999 that the DOE
    would construct and operate the SNS at Oak Ridge.\14\ On November 19,
    1999, DOE approved the beginning of construction. DOE officials expect
    that site preparation activities such as clearing timber and the
    construction of permanent roads will begin in early December 1999.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Department of Energy, Final Environmental Impact Statement,
    Construction and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source Facility,
    DOE/EIS-0247 (April 23, 1999), [http://nepa.eh.doe.gov/eis/eis0247/
    eis0247.html].
        \14\ Department of Energy, Record of Decision for the Construction
    and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source (June 18, 1999), [http:/
    /www.ornl.gov/sns/Rod.pdf].
        \15\ Personal communication, Jeffrey Hoy, DOE-SNS Program Manager,
    November 23, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DOE preferred to build the SNS at Oak Ridge primarily because of
    the laboratory's existing infrastructure and experience in neutron
    science. Oak Ridge's High Flux Isotope Reactor would complement SNS
    research and make Oak Ridge the nation's center for materials science
    research with neutron sources. In addition, the availability of low
    cost skilled labor and the support of the State of Tennessee as well as
    the local community in Oak Ridge were cited in support of the DOE's
    decision. The State of Tennessee has committed to constructing a guest
    user facility and to initiating a neutron science program at the
    University of Tennessee.

    Budget

        From fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated a
    total of $38.5 million for conceptual design work. For fiscal year
    1999, DOE requested $157 million for the SNS to begin design activities
    and to continue research and development work. While the Senate
    suggested appropriating the requested amount (S. 2138, S. Rept. 105-
    206) , the House cut the SNS budget to $100 million, citing severe
    budget constraints (H.R. 4060, H. Rept. 105-581). In conference, the
    Congress appropriated $130 million and gave permission to begin some
    design and construction work (H.R. 4060, H. Rept. 105-749). The
    appropriated amount included $28.6 million for project research and
    development and $101.4 million for construction. The President signed
    the bill (H.R. 4060) October 7, 1998 (Public Law 105-245).
        For fiscal year 2000, DOE requested $214 million for the SNS, an
    increase of 64.6 percent over fiscal year 1999 appropriations. The
    request included $196.1 million for construction and $17.9 million for
    research and development to confirm the SNS's technical design. While
    the Senate approved $186.9 million for the SNS in its version of the
    fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.
    1186, S. Rept. 106-58), including $169 million for its construction,
    the House cut appropriations for the SNS to $67.9 million in its
    version of the bill (H.R. 2605, H. Rept. 106-253), a reduction of
    $146.1 million from the requested amount. In conference, Congress
    followed the recommendation of the House-passed DOE R&D authorization
    bill (H.R. 1655, H. Rept. 106-243) and appropriated $117.9 million for
    the project, including $100 million for construction (H. Rept. 106-
    336). The amount is $69 million less than suggested by the Senate and
    $50 million more than suggested by the House. In total, Congress
    appropriated about 50 percent of the DOE's fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for the SNS's construction. The bill was signed into law on
    September 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-60). Commenting on the bill, the
    President expressed disappointment that Congress did not fully fund the
    Spallation Neutron Source.\16\ However, Representative Zach Wamp
    reportedly is working to secure additional funding for the SNS as part
    of a possible supplemental appropriation bill, expected early in
    2000.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ ``Statement by the President,'' White House Press Release,
    September 30, 1999.
        \17\ Ron Bridgeman, ``OR [Oak Ridge] funding nearly level, despite
    SNS,'' The Oak Ridger, September 30, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ISSUES

        While internal and external reviews have emphasized the project's
    scientific merits, many observers have expressed concerns about the
    project's cost and schedule, its management, and the difficulties of
    effectively integrating the efforts of the five participating
    laboratories.\18\ Dissatisfied with the project's progress, critics in
    the House in 1999 threatened to withhold authorization for further
    construction funds until DOE significantly strengthened SNS management.
    In March 1999, House Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner
    recommended that no fiscal year 2000 funds for SNS construction be
    appropriated because the project's--
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ DOE, Department of Energy Review of the National Spallation
    Neutron Source Project, June 1997; Department of Energy, Technical,
    Cost, Schedule, and Management Review of the Spallation Neutron Source,
    January 1999; EG&G Service, External Independent Review of the
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project, Final Report, March 15, 1999;
    Victor S. Rezendes, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Environment, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Department
    of Energy: Challenges Exist in Managing the Spallation Neutron Source
    Project, GAO/T-RCED-99-103, March 3, 1999.

        ``* * * management is in turmoil, spending is lagging, Project
    [sic] cost and schedule estimates have not been fully developed (nor
    will they be until much later this year), the Department of Energy's
    (DOE's) complex management approach requires further simplification and
    current memorandums [sic] of agreement (MOAs) should be substantially
    strengthened.'' \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Trip Report on the Spallation
    Neutron Source (SNS) (March 5, 1999), [http://www.house.gov/science/
    106thpress/106-24.htm].

        These concerns shaped legislation, in particular the Department of
    Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of
    1999 (H.R. 1655). The bill passed the House but was not taken up in the
    Senate in the 1st Session of the 106th Congress. Concerning the SNS,
    the bill included seven conditions for the obligation of appropriated
    funds for the SNS (see excerpts of H.R. 1655 in Appendix B): (1) that
    senior management positions be filled by qualified individuals; (2)
    that an external review validate the project's cost baseline and
    project milestones; (3) that the duties and obligations of each
    participating laboratory be defined in legally binding terms; (4) that
    the project director have direct supervisory responsibility over the
    SNS staff based at the collaborating laboratories; (5) that the
    Secretary delegate primary authority of the project to the project
    director; (6) that the Tennessee sales tax for the construction of the
    SNS not exceed taxes in states where the SNS could have been
    constructed, i.e., California, Illinois, New Mexico and New York; and
    (7) that the DOE Secretary report on the project's progress annually.
        DOE responded to criticism of SNS's management with the appointment
    of a new Executive Director, Dr. David E. Moncton, in February 1999.
    The choice of Dr. Moncton has been widely applauded, based on his
    professional accomplishments as a physicist and project manager.
    Moncton's career includes fundamental research with neutron sources,
    industrial experience at AT&T Bell Laboratories and Exxon Research
    Corporation, and large project management. He was Associate Director at
    the Argonne National Laboratory, where he directed the completion of
    the Advanced Photon Source on schedule and under budget.\20\ Within
    weeks of his appointment, Moncton provided a project assessment and a
    reorganization plan, addressing concerns about weaknesses in the
    project's management.\21\ In November 1999, Secretary of Energy
    Richardson strengthened the Executive Director's authority by assigning
    him full responsibility for the execution of the project.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Larisa Brass, ``Moncton named new SNS head,'' The Oak Ridger
    (February 22, 1999); Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Dr. David Moncton
    to become SNS Project Director,'' Oak Ridge Press Release (February 23,
    1999), [http://www.ornl.gov/Press__Releases/archive/mr990223-00.html].
        \21\  David E. Moncton et al., Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Assessment Report and Action Plan (April 13, 1999).
        \22\ Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Execution Plan, approved by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on
    November 18, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost and Schedule Baseline

        Reviewers have criticized the cost and schedule estimates for the
    SNS as not being fully developed. Some argue that the project
    leadership lacked the necessary skills to produce a reliable baseline,
    which is regarded as essential for the project's completion on time and
    within budget. In particular, reviewers pointed out that SNS managers
    included insufficient allowances for unforeseen costs and construction
    delays in their cost and schedule estimates, leading to unrealistic
    expectations about the project's total cost and its completion date.
    The new leadership team reviewed the project's cost and schedule
    baseline and increased the contingency budget from 19 percent to 28
    percent of the total project cost, without increasing the project's
    total cost.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Execution Plan, approved by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on
    November 18, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appropriations, Total Costs, and Completion Date

        According to SNS Executive Director Moncton, the fiscal year 2000
    funding cuts of $96 million could increase total costs by $20 million
    and delay completion of the SNS by a year.\24\ SNS officials pointed
    out that the project would require $281 million for fiscal year 2001
    and $272 million for fiscal year 2002 to be completed as planned by
    December 2005. However, critics in Congress contend that the project
    requires close congressional oversight to guard against cost overruns
    and time delays.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Larisa Brass, ``SNS cut may delay schedule,'' The Oak Ridger
    (September 28, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vacant Management Positions

        In 1997, a DOE internal review found that key management positions
    were unfilled.\25\ In early 1999, both an internal and an external
    review concluded that these positions were still vacant and that the
    management lacked the necessary determination to successfully complete
    the project in time and within budget. In March 1999, the lack of
    qualified managers, in particular a technical director and an
    operations manager, were highlighted by the General Accounting Office
    (GAO) and by Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Science Committee.\26\
    SNS Executive Director Moncton recently pointed out that all key
    positions have now been filled, including a construction manager.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ DOE, Department of Energy Review of the National Spallation
    Neutron Source Project, June 1997, p. ii.
        \26\ Victor S. Rezendes, Challenges Exist in Managing the
    Spallation Neutron Source Project (March 3, 1999) GAO/T-RCED-99-103;
    Sensenbrenner, Trip Report on the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)
    (March 5, 1999).
        \27\ Larisa Brass, ``SNS cut may delay schedule,'' The Oak Ridger
    (September 28, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Integration

        As a collaborative effort of five laboratories, the SNS poses
    potentially significant management difficulties. According to DOE, the
    collaborative structure was chosen to incorporate the expertise of each
    participating laboratory. Critics argued, however, that this level of
    collaboration between five national laboratories is unprecedented and
    risks schedule delays and cost overruns.\28\ Reviewers stressed that
    this collaboration can only succeed with the strongest possible
    leadership. In response to this concern, DOE, under Executive Director
    Moncton's leadership, negotiated detailed Memoranda of Agreement, which
    govern the interaction between the participating laboratories and the
    SNS management.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ See for example Victor S. Rezendes, Challenges Exist in
    Managing the Spallation Neutron Source Project (March 3, 1999) GAO/T-
    RCED-99-103.
        \29\ Moncton et al., Spallation Neutron Source: Project Assessment
    Report and Action Plan (April 13, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Key Issues

        According to DOE officials, five of the seven conditions specified
    in H.R. 1655 have been met. The two remaining conditions are the
    independent review of the cost baseline and project milestones, and a
    satisfactory solution to the Tennessee tax problem. While the
    independent review, by the engineering and construction company Burns
    and Roe, appeared in final form on December 10, 1999,\30\ no immediate
    resolution of the Tennessee tax problem is in sight. Furthermore,
    management differences between the SNS Project Office and the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, which designs and constructs one of the
    SNS's pivotal components, could lead to project delays. The remainder
    of this report focuses on these two issues, which could threaten the
    project's completion on time and within budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Private communication, Jeff Hoy, December 10, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Los Alamos's Linac.--Since the initial planning for the SNS, the
    design and production of the project's linear accelerator, or Linac,
    was the responsibility of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Technical and
    management problems, however, led to schedule delays and uncertain cost
    estimates for this pivotal component.\31\ As part of Executive Director
    Moncton's reorganization efforts, a new Accelerator Systems Division
    was established at Oak Ridge.\32\ The new division is responsible for
    ``integration and review of component and system designs, prepare [sic]
    for facility operations, and guide [sic] procurement, fabrication,
    installation, testing and commissioning strategies.'' \33\ Relations
    between the SNS Project Office and the Los Alamos Linac team reportedly
    have been strained since.\34\ It remains to be seen to what extent SNS
    Executive Director Moncton and his team will be able to accelerate and
    control Los Alamos's Linac development and ultimately its timely
    integration into the SNS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ The January 1999 DOE review highlighted the Linac's unresolved
    technical issues as well as management problems. The reviewers
    recommended that the SNS Project Office should take ownership of the
    Linac design, cost estimate and schedule. Department of Energy,
    Technical, Cost, Schedule, and Management Review of the Spallation
    Neutron Source Project (January 1999), p. 9.
        \32\ David E. Moncton et al., Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Assessment Report and Action Plan (April 13, 1999).
        \33\ Ibid., p. 4.
        \34\ Department of Energy, Review Committee Report on the Baseline
    Review of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project (July 1999), p.
    21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tennessee Sales and Use Taxes.--The State of Tennessee imposes
    sales taxes on certain items sold in the state as well as use taxes on
    items purchased elsewhere by non-governmental entities (i.e.,
    contractors) and brought into the state for use. These taxes affect the
    costs of federal construction projects, since the Department of Energy
    generally reimburses its contractors for such taxes. DOE estimated that
    these Tennessee taxes would add about $30 million, or about 2 percent,
    to the SNS's total cost.\35\ In March 1999, House Science Committee
    Chairman Sensenbrenner rejected this tax as unacceptable.\36\ In
    addition, one of the seven conditions for the authorization of funds
    for the SNS, included in H.R. 1655 (see above), dealt with the
    Tennessee sales tax. According to this condition, no funds could be
    obligated until it is guaranteed that the Tennessee sales tax for the
    construction of the SNS would not exceed taxes in California, Illinois,
    New Mexico or New York, the states of alternative sites for the
    facility. Action on the bill is pending in the Senate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Ron Bridgeman, ``Tax bill would exempt SNS,'' The Oak Ridger
    (October 27, 1999). DOE's original cost estimate for sales and use
    taxes amounted to $35.4 million. In July 1999, this figure was reduced
    to $28.3 million.
        \36\ Sensenbrenner, Trip Report on the Spallation Neutron Source
    (SNS) (March 5, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On November 1, 1999, at the opening of a special session on taxes
    of the Tennessee Legislature, Tennessee Governor Sundquist proposed a
    tax plan that included an exemption from the states sale tax for the
    construction of the SNS until the year 2009. However, on November 18,
    1999, the Tennessee legislature voted to adjourn the legislative
    session, leaving tax legislation, including the sales tax issue,
    unresolved.\37\ Nevertheless, it is possible that another tax plan will
    be discussed in the next few months.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Phil West, ``General Assembly adjourns special session on tax
    reform,'' The Oak Ridger (November 18, 1999).
        \38\ ``Income tax is gone for now, but expect issue to re-
    surface,'' The Oak Ridger (November 22, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the meantime, the GAO has determined that at least in one state
    under consideration, New York, virtually no taxes would be imposed on
    the project's construction, since Brookhaven National Laboratory is
    managed by a tax-exempt, not-for-profit organization.\39\ In contrast,
    neither Oak Ridge's current managing contractor, the Lockheed Martin
    Energy Research Cooperation, nor the partnership of the University of
    Tennessee and the Battelle Institute, which will manage Oak Ridge
    beginning in April 2000, are tax-exempt. Therefore, the cost of taxes
    will likely be higher if the SNS is built at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, than
    at Brookhaven, New York. These taxes would violate one of the
    conditions for obligation of SNS construction funds as detailed in H.R.
    1655.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ U.S. General Accounting Office report to House Committee on
    Science, Laboratory Research: Sales and Use Tax Costs to Build DOE's
    Spallation Neutron Source Project (November 19, 1999), GAO/RCED-00-33R
    SNS Tax Costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the unresolved Tennessee sales tax issue, DOE has begun to
    release $68 million of the SNS's total appropriations of $117.9
    million.\40\ DOE managers have argued that since five of the seven
    conditions in the House-passed authorization bill have been satisfied
    and the other two are progressing, it was justified to go ahead and
    release SNS construction and operating funds. DOE managers expect that
    the rest of the fiscal year 2000 SNS funds, about $50 million, will be
    available by February 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Larissa Brass, ``Partial funding comes through for SNS,'' The
    Oak Ridger (November 19, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   CONCLUSION

        DOE officials suggest that the SNS is back on track, largely as a
    consequence of the new leadership team. Yet, supporters of the project
    also contend that the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 cuts in the
    SNS construction budget have made it difficult to meet the scheduled
    completion date. They argue that further cuts might lead to the
    project's termination.
        At this time it is uncertain to what extent Congress agrees with
    DOE's decision to release funds before all seven conditions included in
    the House-passed authorization bill were met. The Tennessee tax issue
    is likely to be raised again during the fiscal year 2001 budget
    negotiations. In addition, problems with the integration of Los
    Alamos's component for the SNS, could result in significant
    construction delays. Congress may closely watch DOE's efforts to solve
    SNS management problems, to get the project back on track, and to
    successfully begin operation in December 2005. There are those in
    Congress who stress that the SNS requires close oversight to guard
    against cost overruns and schedule delays. The recently issued cost and
    schedule baselines should offer a measure to evaluate the project's
    progress.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ Spallation Neutron Source, Project Execution Plan, approved by
    Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on November 18, 1999; see also
    Department of Energy, Review Committee Report on the Baseline Review of
    the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project (July 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Appendix A: Technical Description

    Neutrons and Neutron Beams \42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ For general information on neutrons and neutron beams see
    Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: The next-generation
    neutron scattering facility for the United States (1998); see also the
    project's website [http://www.ornl.gov/sns/].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Neutrons and protons are subatomic particles of about the same size
    and mass. While protons have a positive charge, neutrons are
    electrically neutral. Neutrons can penetrate matter more easily than
    protons, because they are not deflected in the electromagnetic fields
    of atoms. This property makes neutrons ideal sources for probing the
    structure of materials. A high-intensity neutron source can be used as
    a high-resolution ``microscope'' to investigate the structure of
    materials.
        Neutron beams can be produced either by a nuclear reactor or a
    particle accelerator. A nuclear reactor produces a continuous flux of
    neutrons, whereas an accelerator can generate short pulses of neutrons.
    Most of the world's nineteen operating neutron sources are nuclear
    reactors, often 30 to 40 years old, but the majority of recently
    designed sources are accelerator-based. DOE officials emphasize that
    for many research problems a pulsed source is more desirable, because
    higher neutron intensities and energies can be reached. In addition, an
    accelerator is environmentally significantly less controversial than a
    nuclear reactor.

    The Spallation Neutron Source \43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ For SNS technical parameters see David Olsen et al., SNS
    Parameter List (July 8, 1999); [http://www.ornl.gov/sns/
    paralist070899.pdf]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SNS is an accelerator system consisting of five major
    components: a particle source, a linear accelerator, an accumulator
    ring, a beam target, and an area for experimentation. The particle
    source produces negatively charged hydrogen ions (a proton orbited by
    two electrons), which are then accelerated to high energies in a large,
    465-meter long, linear accelerator. Leaving the accelerator, these ions
    are stripped of their electrons and thereby converted to protons.
    Within a small fraction of a second, the accumulator ring, a structure
    of about 220 meters circumference, collects many billions of these
    high-energy protons into a bunch, which is then released onto a target
    of liquid mercury. When high-energy protons bombard a heavy metal
    target such as mercury, every proton knocks between 20 to 30 neutrons
    out of a target (e.g., mercury) atom. This process, known as neutron
    spallation, gives the project its name. Finally, the high-energy
    neutrons are slowed down before they are directed to various
    experimental setups.
        The pulsed neutron beam will be directed to experimental setups
    where scientists use the beam to investigate the arrangement and motion
    of atoms in materials. Instruments measure how the material under
    investigation scatters the incoming neutrons. A detailed analysis of
    the scattering patterns allows researchers to determine a material's
    atomic structure. In many ways the SNS is a high resolution
    ``microscope,'' comparable to X-ray or electron microscopes. While
    scientists use a variety of techniques to investigate the structure of
    materials, neutron scattering offers insights not obtainable with any
    other procedure. DOE officials expect many benefits from neutron
    scattering research, ranging from improved magnetic materials to better
    plastics and superconductors which have applications in every day life.
        Each of the five participating national laboratories is responsible
    for the design and construction of one of the SNS's major components.
    Lawrence Berkeley is responsible for the ion source, Los Alamos for the
    Linac, Brookhaven for the accumulator ring, Oak Ridge for the target,
    and finally, Oak Ridge and Argonne for instrumentation and experiment
    facilities. After a number of reviews, DOE decided in 1999 that the SNS
    would be constructed at the DOE's preferred site at Oak Ridge, where it
    will occupy an area of about 100 acres.
        DOE expects that the SNS will operate for about 40 years. Each year
    between 1,000-2,000 scientists and engineers, primarily from U.S.
    academic institutions, industry, and government laboratories, will use
    the new facility.

                      Appendix B: Excerpts From H.R. 1655

        H.R.1655: Department of Energy Research, Development, and
    Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 (Passed House on September 15,
    1999, pending in the Senate)

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

              * * * * * * *
        (b) Science.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
    Secretary for Science scientific and civilian energy research,
    development, and demonstration operation and maintenance and
    construction programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums
    are not authorized under other authority of law $2,657,761,000 for
    fiscal year 2000 and $2,691,465,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain
    available until expended, of which--
              * * * * * * *
                (10) $17,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,100,000 for
            fiscal year 2001 shall be for Spallation Neutron Source
            research and development; and
                (11) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be for
            construction of Project 99-E-334, Spallation Neutron Source,
            Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 10. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

        (a) Construction of Spallation Neutron Source Project.--None of the
    funds authorized by section 3(b)(11) may be obligated until--
                (1) the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee on
            Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
            Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate that senior project
            management positions for the project have been filled by
            qualified individuals; and
                (2) the Secretary provides the Committee on Science and the
            Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives,
            and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
            Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, with--
                        (A) a cost baseline and project milestones for each
                    major construction and technical system activity,
                    consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted
                    with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, that
                    have been reviewed and certified by an independent
                    entity, outside the Department and having no financial
                    interest in the project, as the most cost-effective way
                    to complete the project;
                        (B) binding legal agreements that specify the
                    duties and obligations of each laboratory of the
                    Department in carrying out the project;
                        (C) a revised project management structure that
                    integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories
                    working on the project under a single project director,
                    who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over
                    the carrying out of the duties and obligations
                    described in subparagraph (B); and
                        (D) official delegation by the Secretary of primary
                    authority with respect to the project to the project
                    director; and
                (3) the Comptroller General reports to the Congress, on the
            basis of available information, that the tax reimbursements
            that the Comptroller General estimates the Department would pay
            to its contractors as a cost of constructing the Spallation
            Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee
            would be no more than the tax reimbursements it would pay if
            the same project were constructed at the Lawrence Berkeley
            National Laboratory in California, the Argonne National
            Laboratory in Illinois, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
            New Mexico, or the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
    The Secretary shall report on the Spallation Neutron Source Project 99-
    E-334 annually, as part of the Department's annual budget submission,
    including a description of the achievement of milestones, a comparison
    of actual costs to estimated costs, and any changes in estimated
    project costs or schedule.
              * * * * * * *

                           Selected Reference Sources

    Neutron Sources in the United States
        Department of Energy, Neutron Sources and Applications, DOE/ER-
    0607P (January 1994)
        Department of Energy, Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
    Committee on Neutron Source Facility Upgrades and the Technical
    Specifications for the Spallation Neutron Source (March 1998)
    The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)
        Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: The next-
    generation neutron scattering facility for the United States (1998)
        SNS website: [http://www.ornl.gov/sns/]
    SNS Reports and Project Reviews, Chronological
        Department of Energy, Review of the National Spallation Neutron
    Source Project (June 1997)
        Department of Energy, Technical, Cost, Schedule, and Management
    Review of the Spallation Neutron Source Project (January 1999)
        Victor S. Rezendes, Challenges Exist in Managing the Spallation
    Neutron Source Project (March 3, 1999) GAO/T-RCED-99-103
        F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Trip Report on the Spallation Neutron
    Source (SNS) (March 5, 1999) [http://www.house.gov/science/106thpress/
    106-24.htm]
        EG&G Services, Final Report, External Independent Review of the
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project, Pursuant to House Report 105-
    271 (March 15, 1999)
        Department of Energy, Construction and Operation of the Spallation
    Neutron Source Facility, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume
    1, DOE/EIS-0247 (April 1999)
        David E. Moncton et al., Spallation Neutron Source: Project
    Assessment Report and Action Plan (April 13, 1999)
        Department of Energy, Record of Decision for the Construction and
    Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source (June 18, 1999)
        Department of Energy, Review Committee Report on the Baseline
    Review of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project (July 1999)
        Department of Energy, Spallation Neutron Source: Project Execution
    Plan, approved by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson on November 18,
    1999
        U.S. General Accounting Office report to House Committee on
    Science, Laboratory Research: Sales and Use Tax Costs to Build DOE's
    Spallation Neutron Source Project (November 19, 1999), GAO/RCED-00-33R
    SNS Tax Costs

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        An article appeared in The Washington Times on Valentine's
    Day. I assume you saw it, but it stated that the Integrated
    Library System cost more than it was supposed to cost and was
    not going to save the $8 million a year and 81 FTE's the
    Congress had been promised. Last year the Library testified
    that the Integrated Library System was $270,000 over budget for
    fiscal 2000, $1.9 million for the entire project.
        Can you give us an update on that whole situation?
        General Scott. I would like to take that if I might,
    Senator.

                           INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM

        Senator Bennett. General Scott.
        General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like
    to state that the Library was able to implement the Integrated
    Library System successfully, on time and within the current
    budget. We did so on October 1, 1999.
        Second, I would like to note that the cost figure of $70
    million that the Times reported is incorrect. The total cost of
    the Integrated Library System, based on a 7-year life cycle for
    this project, is approximately $42 million, of which $17.7
    million is appropriated from the Congress, plus about $24
    million from internal reallocation from the Library.
        Regrettably, within the 4 months since we have been
    operating this system we have encountered some glitches with
    software for the conversion of payments and have a number of
    vendors who have not been paid. We have taken immediate steps
    to correct that problem and estimate that we will pay all of
    the vendors by the end of May.
        I would also like to address the savings issue. We
    originally estimated a cumulative savings of $6.2 million over
    4 years, including 54.5 FTE's. We continue to monitor those
    savings and use the GAO-approved methodology in our quarterly
    progress report to the Congress.
        Senator Bennett. I have some additional questions, but we
    have been joined by the chairman of the full committee, Senator
    Stevens, who is a very active member of this subcommittee.
    Senator, we are glad to have you. Do you have any questions or
    comments?

                           RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    prefer to listen to your questions. I would ask the one,
    though, that I note that the budget does not contain any
    request to continue the program that deals with the Russian
    Leadership Program. Did you request funds through the budget
    process for that, or what is the situation with that program?
        Dr. Billington. No, we did not formally request funds,
    because the original legislation in fiscal 2000 indicated that,
    after 1 year, the program would be reallocated to an
    unspecified executive branch agency. Now the program has been
    renewed and is allocated to the Library a second time. We did
    not include it formally in our budget request because although
    we are very glad and honored to be asked to do it for a second
    time, we were requesting a very large increase this year and,
    because this program was not a direct core need of the Library,
    we did not include it.
        At the time of the submission, we were only authorized to
    run it for fiscal 2000, 1 year, and we did not feel that we
    should introduce it formally in our fiscal 2001 budget
    presentation without authorization.
        The program, as I would be happy to attest at great length
    and to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, has really been
    astonishingly successful and has had a great impact on the
    2,150 young emerging political leaders that we brought over
    last summer from 83 of the 89 districts in Russia. They visited
    45 of the 50 States as well as the District of Columbia.
        The response was overwhelmingly positive. Quite a number of
    them have since been elected to the new Duma. Those newly
    elected Duma members are all testifying internally in Russia to
    the importance of this program, and we are very much in hopes
    that in the renewed program this year we will be able to bring
    over perhaps as many as 10 times that many members, 10 times
    the 10 that are presently in the Duma.
        This program has all kinds of fascinating aspects. This is
    the largest importation, the closest approximation to the 1.5
    percent of young Germans that the Marshall Plan brought to
    America after World War II. It was something we have never done
    before with Russia. If we duplicate this number, it will be by
    far the largest two importations of young Russian emerging
    political leaders. It is right in the middle of an interesting
    time, when they are creating a new generation of leadership
    with their new acting president.
        This has been a stunningly successful program. We are
    honored to have it for a second year. But the reason that we
    did not introduce it formally in our budget is as I have
    described.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I had hoped that we would find a way
    to interest some of the foundations of the country to either
    pick that up entirely or to come in and match those funds.
    Maybe we ought to have a period of matching funds for this
    program. It does seem to me that it ought to be something that
    ultimately should be privately funded, but still something that
    the Library is very much involved with.
        The people that I have talked to from Russia who were not
    part of the program but are part of the government were all
    very much aware of the program and very supportive. The fact
    that it is going through the Library of Congress sort of
    sanitizes it politically as far as they are concerned.
        Is the program a burden to the Library of Congress?
        Dr. Billington. I would not say so. We have a team that was
    put together last year, which we are keeping together for the
    second year. We simply take them out of their regular duties
    and get them working on this, and of course then we work with
    contract agencies in Russia as well as with host communities.
        There was a substantial private contribution even last
    year, and we expect that to increase this year. The Rotary
    International, headed by a marvelous person from Rotary in
    Alaska, did a spectacular job. The Methodists and a number of
    other church groups, provided hospitality.
        I just had a conversation last week, thanks to Chairman
    Bennett, with the head of the National Governors Association,
    who agreed to present the idea of having people from the
    Federative Council, the upper house, which as you know has the
    actual sitting governors serving as our equivalent of sitting
    Senators. If the governors are able to participate, they may be
    able to shadow or have some contact with the governors, as well
    as with the legislators.
        There are all kinds of interesting horizons that are
    opening up. It is a heavy responsibility, but our team that
    functioned so well last year is very enthused about doing it
    again, and I think we should be able to do it. We are going to
    do it a little earlier this year. We hope to have it largely
    finished by the mid-summer rather than just conducted during
    the summer.
        It is a great deal of work, but I think the people are so
    energized with the excitement that is generated. The average
    age of these people is 37 years old, 38 percent of them are
    women. That is a totally different profile. That is an emerging
    generation with a totally different profile and a positive and
    affirmative outlook from all over Russia, where for the first
    time we get a sense something is percolating from the bottom up
    and from the periphery in.
        All this helps give hope to people who have been dominated
    from the top down, from the center out. I think they gained a
    lot by seeing how a real federative democracy functions--and
    they really like staying in people's homes.
        This year, we are going to try to give it a little more
    professional focus. We have a little more lead time this year,
    so we hope to match people up with States and professions and
    interests that are more compatible than we were able to do with
    the short timeframe last year.
        Senator Stevens. Did you receive the support that you
    really sought from the private sector this past year?
        Dr. Billington. We got support from the nonprofit
    organizations, the various groups, the church groups, the
    fraternal organizations, a number of groups that were involved
    in exchanges before. We got very good support from them on
    local hospitality. In fact, even though we only had a few
    months to do it by the end of the summer, we had something like
    two or three times the number of families volunteering to house
    a visiting Russian sight unseen. The spirit of the American
    people is wonderful.
        I would have to say we did not get very much support from
    the foundation world. But on the other hand, there was not
    really time. We had to work directly with the local hosts and
    with the national organizations that were helping.
        Senator Stevens. Maybe the chairman and Mr. Symington and
    you and I ought to pursue that and see what we can do to get
    greater support.
        Dr. Billington. I have to say that in general the support
    for doing creative things in that part of the world has not
    been as rich and generous in the foundation and corporate
    sector as one would hope. So I would be happy to work with you
    on that.
        Senator Stevens. One last question, Mr. Chairman.
        What is this about this arrearages that people talked to me
    about yesterday in terms of paying the bills of the Library?
    Can you tell us about that?

                   INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM BILL ARREARAGES

        Dr. Billington. Well, we just, we had a question in that
    regard.
        Senator Stevens. Oh, you already had a question, I am
    sorry.
        Dr. Billington. Yes, General Scott has dealt with it. Let
    me just say that the ILS itself, the Integrated Library System,
    is entirely paid for. We are dealing with the last of four----
        Senator Stevens. No, I do not mean that. I mean the story
    out that you are more than 90 days behind in paying your bills.
    The law requires all agencies of the Government to pay their
    bills in 90 days.
        Dr. Billington. We have lagged somewhat, and perhaps
    General Scott would want to respond to you. But we hope to have
    that all corrected by May.
        General Scott. Yes, sir, Senator. As part of the Integrated
    Library System there is a feature that pays vendors for the
    library materials that they send us. This bill paying function
    is done by a new software module that automates paying the
    bills. Once we got into the actual implementation of this
    module, we found that there were some unforeseen difficulties.
        We now know what the problem is, we are working to fix it,
    and estimate that by the end of May, if not sooner, we will
    have all of the vendors paid.
        Senator Stevens. It was a breakdown of the system that led
    to that delay?
        General Scott. I would not describe it as a breakdown but
    as some unforeseen glitches in the software for the transition
    from the way we used to pay to the new system. We have
    identified the problem, and we think we have found a solution
    that will fix it and get us caught up on payments.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mulhollan, the Congressional Research Service by its
    very name exists to respond to Congressional inquiries. I have
    the sense, and it is nothing more than that--I have no
    statistical basis--that as Congress has increased the size of
    its internal staff, it looks less to the Library of Congress
    than it used to.
        Again, when I served on a staff 30 years ago, 35 years ago,
    we were calling the CRS quite often for information for
    constituents, constituent requests. It was an extension really
    of the Senator's staff on a regular daily basis. Now I come
    back here as a Senator and find that my staff is twice as
    large, as manifested by the size of the rooms. When the Dirksen
    Building was first occupied, every Senator that moved in here
    felt he had entered heaven because he had five rooms. In the
    old Senate office building across the street, now the Russell
    Building, each Senator had three rooms. When I went to serve on
    a House staff, each House Member had two rooms, pre-Rayburn.
    Now I come as a Senator, I have 10 rooms and the staff to fill
    them.
        My staff does not call CRS for information for constituent
    replies. It is not as integrated into our daily staff activity
    as it used to be. What kind of requests--this is just a general
    kind of question. What kinds of requests do you get? Is the
    volume going up every year? And do you get a lot of requests
    from outside of Congress for your services, or are you strictly
    reserved to just Congressional requests? Do you get more from
    committees than from individual staff?

                         Congressional Research Service

        Just give us a feel for what goes on?
        Mr. Mulhollan. First of all, we serve only the Congress and
    only respond to questions from Members of the Congress and
    their offices and committees.
        Second, the workload has been steadily over a half million
    for quite a few years. What has changed is two things. I see a
    note, for instance, like in the research centers here in the
    Senate and the House; there has been a slight decline in the
    numbers going up, but the numbers that use the web site have
    been going up significantly.
        So that I think certain kinds of information inquiries,
    staff are now going to the web sites. Part of our challenge is,
    because of the high Congressional staff turnover--for instance
    roughly 49 and 52 percent of legislative assistants,
    legislative counsels, are in their position for 1 year or
    less--it is part of CRS' challenge to make sure they know how
    to use CRS well and how CRS can help them in their work.
        I think there is a slight decline in self-identified
    constituent requests. Anecdotally--I do not have systematic
    data on it--our librarians tell us that the kinds of research
    requests they get now are more complex. I can give you a
    breakdown and submit for the record the percentage of committee
    requests and Member office requests.
        [The information follows:]

     CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE SUMMARY OF COMPLETED REQUESTS AND SERVICES PROVIDED--FISCAL YEAR 1999 (ALL FOUR
                                                        QUARTERS)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Detail of Requests and Services
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Reference
                                        Total       Analysis,       Cited       Seminar,       Center     Client Use
          Requester Category        Requests and  Information,  Material and   Institute,      direct       of CRS
                                    Services \1\  and research   CRS Product  and Training    Requests    Electronic
                                                  Requests \2\  Requests \2\  Participants    and Self     Services
                                                                                              Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, All Requesters \3\.....       545,663       102,226        37,841        11,016       82,416      312,164
                                   =================================================================================
    House, Total..................       330,440        67,376        25,098         6,301       47,625      184,040
        Members...................       118,079        55,487        22,593         5,279       34,720           NA
        Committees................        28,321        11,889         2,505         1,022       12,905           NA
        Automated (not specified)        184,040            NA            NA            NA           NA      184,040
         \4\......................
                                   =================================================================================
    Senate, Total.................       200,530        33,902         9,059         4,497       34,448      118,624
        Members...................        65,441        26,014         7,661         3,698       28,068           NA
        Committees................        16,465         7,888         1,398           799        6,380           NA
        Automated (not specified)        118,624            NA            NA            NA           NA      118,624
         \4\......................
                                   =================================================================================
    Joint.........................         1,002           490           151            52          309      ( \5\ )
    Congressional Support Agencies         8,050           458           672           166           34        6,720
    Not Specified \6\.............         5,641            NA         2,861            NA           NA        2,780
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 73 percent of Total Requests and Services are immediate services by definition; this includes the following:
      Reference Center Direct Requests and Self-Service, Product Distribution Center walk-ins, and client Use of CRS
      Electronic Services.
    \2\ Analysis, Information and Research Requests and Cited Material and CRS Product Requests no longer include
      Reference Center Direct Requests, effective fiscal year 1996.
    \3\ During fiscal year 1999, CRS provided services to all Members of all Committees' committee data include
      party organizations; House and Senate combined totals sorted by client category: Members: 183,520; Committees:
      45,788; House and Senate Automated (not specified): 302,664.
    \4\ Sign-ons to CRS electronic files (CRS Web), though identified by House or Senate, are not identified by
      Member or Committee.
    \5\ Joint committee electronic services are included in either House or Senate figures, depending on telephone
      location.
    \6\ Stats Line calls, Fax-on-Demand, and some cited product requests of the Product Distribution Center cannot
      be identified by client category.

        Mr. Mulhollan. I believe that in recent years there has
    been a 15 percent reduction in the Senate staff, committee
    staff, and a 30 percent reduction in the House committee staff.
    So that you have with the reduction of committee staff
    resources I think even a greater reliance upon the Service with
    regard to legislative work. One indicator for instance, is that
    our Legislative Alert, which lists those CRS reports that are
    available on issues which are coming to the Senate floor each
    week, has thousands of hits.
        Given the needs of Congressional staff, our challenge is to
    get CRS at the desktop because particularly incoming Senate
    staff are used to that, and I think that we are meeting that
    challenge.
        Dr. Billington. In the last 5 years the aggregate numbers
    have gone up 13, a little over 13 percent of requests and
    services provided by CRS. So there has been a slight increase.
        Senator Bennett. My only one occasion, when I was preparing
    for a fairly major speech, I called over to the Library of
    Congress and had a number of your experts come to my office,
    and we sat down and went over the aspects of the speech I was
    preparing to give, and I said, this is the kind of information
    I need, this is the kind of statistical backup I require, and
    so on. It was very helpful.
        I guess maybe I need to give a few more speeches like that
    to get me involved more thoroughly in what you do.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Part of the Service's responsibility is to
    make sure that each Senate office knows how to use CRS. There
    is a significant investment on the part of the Senate and the
    House in CRS and we want to make sure that we are there to help
    you to make your staff more effective.
        Senator Bennett. I just remember my father's staff;
    routinely the chief of staff would say to members of the staff:
    Well, check with CRS on this, call the Library of Congress on
    this, get a report from the Library of Congress. I do not think
    we do that routinely at all any more. We have built our in-
    house expertise with the larger number of staffers. And we
    probably would do a better job if we did consult you more
    often.
        Mr. Mulhollan. I hope that is the case. Also, we have
    talked about before, we have a number of competitors out there
    who might be labeled as advocacy research, who are very
    aggressive in getting their research and analysis out to every
    office. So now you have a much richer mix of information and
    analysis on every legislative issue, and oftentimes we have had
    a number of offices who have gotten that material and then come
    to CRS and say: Okay, now evaluate this.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, Heritage or Brookings or AEI.
        Mr. Mulhollan. All the above.
        Senator Stevens. Would the chairman yield there?
        Senator Bennett. Surely.
        Senator Stevens. You know that the reduction that Mr.
    Mulhollan mentions is on top of the reduction that was made at
    the time in the eighties when Senator Baker was the chairman--
    was the leader. We have had a redundant reduction in staff, on
    the basis that we had shared staff at CRS and GAO. For a time
    there there appeared to be an overlapping between GAO and CRS
    in some Members' minds and we faced a problem of reducing one
    or the other according to amendments that came at us.
        But I still believe in the shared staff concept and I think
    that probably we ought to have more of an indoctrination period
    for new staff to understand the delineation between GAO and CRS
    and the shared staff that is available.
        Mr. Mulhollan. I agree, sir.
        Senator Stevens. When I was chairman of Rules we reduced
    the Senate staff by 15 percent, and I think we have done it
    again, have we not? So what you say is right about the buildup
    compared with the old days because of space limitations, but we
    have actually reduced our own staff considerably, in reliance
    upon maintaining the support for CRS and GAO.
        Mr. Mulhollan. I completely agree with you regarding staff
    reductions. Also, even though the average number of years is I
    think something like 5.9 years tenure for all Senate staff,
    there are still some key positions, such as legislative
    assistant and legislative counsel, where data suggests half of
    the staff are in that position 1 year or less.
        That requires us to help, in order to be there for
    legislation, to help them to know how to use us. We are making
    particular efforts. We have reorganized in part to make sure
    that we have better outreach, to show how to use CRS
    effectively.
        Senator Stevens. I think that may be our fault.
        Senator Bennett. Yes. Reflecting over my own experience,
    when I came for indoctrination as a brand new Senator, Senator
    Mitchell was the leader. He had several days that took place
    literally within a week of our election. We were still kind of
    brushing the sleep out of our eyes after the exhaustion of
    going through election and showing up in Washington. We had
    thorough indoctrination in a whole range of areas, and the
    Library of Congress was never mentioned.
        I think, frankly, that the indoctrination of new Senators
    since that time has gotten sparser rather than greater and that
    maybe a new Senator coming into this situation should have more
    information. If I had not had my previous experience on a
    Senate staff, I would have known nothing about the Library of
    Congress as a brand new Senator.
        Mr. Mulhollan. If you recall, Senator, you were gracious
    enough and able to join our new Members program at the time in
    Williamsburg.
        Senator Bennett. Right.
        Mr. Mulhollan. We have been working with the joint
    leadership.
        Senator Bennett. I was the only Senator down there.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. Which is I think interesting, that none of
    my colleagues felt the need to go down and have that.
        Mr. Mulhollan. We now have a 1-day program, with the
    cooperation of Rules and Administration and the joint
    leadership, at the Library, as part of your orientation, so
    newly elected Senators get exposure to CRS's capacity and the
    Library's collections. So I think through this effort that we
    are getting an increasing amount of participation on the part
    of Senators, and hopefully that will be one avenue toward the
    goal that you mentioned.

                           THOMAS HOMEPAGE DEFACEMENT

        Senator Bennett. Let me change the subject. The Library's
    Thomas home page was defaced on January 17. It remained
    undetected for an hour and a half. One of the byproducts of my
    involvement with Y2K has been my concern about this kind of
    thing, because I realized if we could have the disaster that
    could have occurred had we not prepared for Y2K by accident,
    what kind of disaster could we have on purpose? That is,
    someone who wishes us ill comes in on purpose.
        There has been higher publicity given to the attacks on
    several commercial web sites, shutting them down. I understand
    that it was, frankly, very easy to do and very difficult to
    detect. It comes under the category pretty much of a prank, of
    somebody deciding they are going to shut down amazon.com or
    Yahoo or whatever.
        The firewalls that were constructed were sufficiently
    strong as to prevent anybody from getting any data out. They
    simply shut it down. But I think that is going to become the
    norm rather than the exception in the future.
        So I would ask my final question: Has the Library done
    anything as a result of your experience with the Thomas home
    page, and do you have any--if you have done something, do you
    have any information to share with the Congress, because our
    home pages are equally vulnerable to that kind of attack.
        General Scott?
        General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Library has
    included in this budget $661,000 for computer security. The
    main focus of that money would be to hire five new staff. Two
    of these new staff would be used specifically to help us
    provide a greater deterrent to potential intruders.
        What we have found, as I think all Government agencies are
    finding with respect to computer security and hackers, is that
    if you do not have someone who is smart enough to thwart the
    hackers, then we will have to bear that risk. So two of the
    positions that we are asking for would help us to come up with
    better deterrents to potential intruders, and help us to
    improve our systems that keep people out and or detect early
    when somebody is trying to get in.
        The three other additional staff will be individuals to
    monitor and administer our security systems and develop
    enhanced security programs.
        $250,000 of the $661,000 would help us to purchase the
    software and equipment that comprise these enhanced information
    technology security systems for the Library. In sum, we were
    fortunate to spot the defaced webpage and begin action to
    repair it within an hour. We were able to repair the damage
    immediately and we have reasonable assurance that no one will
    be able to get into our system that way again. But we do need
    additional people who have the skills that can help us to
    continue to improve and protect our systems.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        Do you have any other questions, Senator Stevens?
        Senator Stevens. No.
        Senator Bennett. We may have some additional questions in
    writing, but we appreciate your appearing here. We appreciate
    the work that you do. You do have stewardship for one of the--
    this is an overused term and therefore has lost perhaps some of
    its value, but you do have stewardship for a true national
    treasure, and we appreciate the reverence you have for the
    institution that you preside over and we need to do everything
    we can to keep it in that category.

                              SUCCESSION PLANNING

        Dr. Billington. I just want to add, Mr. Chairman, on this
    question of service to the Congress, because I think we are
    anxious not only in CRS. One of the important things that the
    Congress has helped us with, and of course we are very
    grateful, is succession planning. Because the kind of
    specialized talents embodied in the Library's staff, who know
    the history of issues as they have framed themselves in the
    legislative process, is an almost priceless asset. If we let
    all of these people retire without imparting that knowledge,
    that memory, that continuity of the Congressional experience,
    which is really deeply embedded in CRS, we will be missing an
    opportunity.
        So we want to thank you for your support of our succession
    plans, and also mention the Law Library as well, which has
    shrunk its size considerably just through attrition. Twenty-
    three of its law specialists cover 200 jurisdictions around the
    world, using the world's largest collection of legal
    information, and respond on all kinds of exotic things. Seven
    of those 23 are 70 years of age or older, and all of that
    experience is going to be----
        Senator Bennett. Still very young and vigorous.
        Dr. Billington. I am very much of that persuasion, too,
    increasingly so with every passing month.
        So the ability to transmit memory and to provide, answer
    the kinds of questions that you made, because in addition to
    CRS and the Law Library, which more or less directly serve the
    Congress, the curators with their global reach and their high
    degree of specialty also represent a force that, particularly
    with the growth of electronic delivery systems, we should be
    able to answer more of the kinds of questions that perhaps were
    more readily asked in your father's time.
        So this is a real major frontier for us, and the ability to
    have succession planning so that we can replace, not just
    replace the people but impart the knowledge and the people on
    down, is going to be I think as important an asset as our
    collections in the years ahead.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        So we do thank you for that support and hope that it can
    continue in the way that we have submitted for this year's
    budget as well.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you all. We appreciate your coming
    and appreciate the service that you render.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

        Question. The budget includes a request for $21 million and an
    additional 133 FTEs for a ``Digital Futures Project'' to increase the
    processing of digital materials and continue digitizing historical
    collections. The program has a 5 year cost of $120 million. I
    understand that this program is a follow on to ``National Digital
    Library'' project that was funded through a private-public match of $63
    million over 5 years. ($48 million private/$15 appropriated funds.)
        Have the authorizing committees approved this proposal?
        Is $21 million necessary for this initiative, and are there any
    possibilities of continuing this work with private funding also?
        Answer. The Library provided a copy of the Digital Futures Project
    five-year plan to the authorizing and appropriating committees. We did
    not request new authorizing legislation because the acquisition,
    storage, preservation, and dissemination of digital material is part of
    the Library's mission. As the Congress adds a new media to the
    Copyright Laws, the Library's responsibilities to support that mission
    must expand to cover that new format.
        The National Digital Library Program (NDLP) was established as a
    five-year pioneering program to share electronically--for the first
    time--the contents of the Library of Congress American history
    collections with the wider public. The private sector sponsors we
    approached for NDLP seed money understood that that pilot program was
    aimed at proving core library materials accessibility could be greatly
    advanced in the new electronic environment. We believe that they helped
    launch what now is a core library service to the nation; and that this
    is not a new program, but rather the way the Library needs to conduct
    business and services now and in the future.
        The success of the NDLP is proven; we have more than five million
    items of American history on-line or in the pipeline, and millions of
    ``hits'' each working day. The Library is now a world leader in
    providing high-quality educational materials on the Internet, both free
    of charge and with authoritative explanatory material. We are leading
    the way for many other libraries in the information age.
        The proposed budget request is for the next phase. The Digital
    Futures Initiative is based upon the Library's mission--it is an
    integrated and interdependent program to acquire, store, preserve, and
    share digital materials in addition to traditional media--and we cannot
    risk losing any part of the program. Further, relying on private funds
    puts the success of the total program at risk, and could potentially
    leave the Library as the ``Museum of the Book''.
        Private sector donors with whom we have had lengthy discussions see
    the Library's digital efforts as an ongoing and critical part of the
    Library's mission, rather than a time-limited project appropriate for
    private funding. That said, we doubt our ability to continue raising
    private funds at the level raised for National Digital Library Program.
    Thanks to this unique public-private partnership, the Library is poised
    to transform traditional library services to meet the current
    information needs of Congress and its constituents.
        Question. The Library's THOMAS homepage was defaced on January
    17th, and remained undetected for approximately 1.5 hours. At the time
    the Library indicated it was reviewing its network and computer
    security measures and procedures. Given CRS is dependent on the
    Library's computer system and CRS has a special confidential
    relationship with Congress, this is of particular concern.
        What has the Library done to reduce the chance that this could
    happen again? Does this problem pose a risk for Congress?
        Answer. The answer to this question is presented in two parts:
    first, the Library's reaction to the January 17th THOMAS intrusion and
    its future plans to secure this system, and second, the security
    concerns, needs and plans of CRS relating to such threats.
        With regard to the THOMAS intrusion incident, Library staff were
    aware that the page had been defaced within about 30 minutes and the
    system was shut down within 90 minutes of the time the system was
    defaced. After blocking public access to the defaced THOMAS homepage
    and repairing the damage that had been done, public access to THOMAS
    was restored. To reduce the chance that this might happen again, the
    Library's technology Security Team identified appropriate additional
    network and computer security measures which were prioritized based on
    criticality of need and resource availability.
        Several near-term tasks have been completed, and include:
    notification and information regarding the defacement to the
    appropriate authorities; an audit of all Library server systems and
    evaluation of possible problems; rebuilding all servers found to be
    compromised; review and change of all accounts and passwords on
    compromised servers, and on any servers for users that had access to
    compromised servers; review, refinement and restriction of public
    Internet access; implementation of software to isolate publicly
    available servers, in order to reduce the potential that an intruder
    could use one Library server to compromise another; and hardened host-
    based security measures through elimination of unnecessary and/or
    particularly vulnerable services.
        Medium-term tasks have all been initiated, and include:
    implementing a system to identify and notify the Library's technology
    security staff of unauthorized changes to operating system software or
    files; review and change of all accounts and passwords on any servers
    for users that had access to compromised servers; implementing more
    secure method(s) of providing Library staff with the required remote
    access to Library systems (e.g., virtual private network); researching
    Library requirements for additional firewall implementation(s); and
    researching and implementing increased host-based security on NT (i.e.,
    non-UNIX) servers.
        It is our belief, that the specific exploitations used in the
    process of defacing the THOMAS homepage did not result in a compromise
    of confidential congressional information. Furthermore, after
    identifying the problem, the Library took and continues to take
    additional and appropriate security measures which have reduced any
    such risks to congressional information. It is, however, also true that
    network connectivity involving the Internet cannot be said to be
    completely secure. The Library and Congress will have to continue to
    balance security requirements with the goals of providing broad public
    access to legislative and collections materials.
        With regard to concern with the Congressional Research Service
    (CRS) dependency on the Library's computer system and their special
    confidentiality needs. CRS has its own specialized security needs. They
    are distinct from those of the Library, as a result of the fact that
    CRS houses sensitive congressional information and works in a close and
    confidential way with the Congress. These concerns are magnified by the
    current connections between public and private information in the
    Library's systems.
        At a minimum, CRS needs to have all of its systems protected by a
    variety of security measures that will adequately reduce the risk of
    intrusion. CRS is focusing on adequately reducing the risk of intrusion
    that might lead to: (1) unauthorized access; (2) corruption of data;
    (3) denial of service; or (4) intrusion into connected congressional
    systems. More specifically, in order to reduce security risks to an
    acceptable level, CRS believes that plans must include, at a minimum,
    the following: protection of CRS systems from intrusion through THOMAS
    or any other public system; completion of installation of a 100-megabit
    Fast-Ethernet network (on isolated CRS segments) which will be harder
    to penetrate than the current four-megabit token ring configuration
    (which overlaps with Library systems), will allow for more timely
    backup of data for disaster recovery purposes, and will make possible
    virtual network encryption of sensitive information such as ISIS
    congressional request tracking data; completion of work to provide
    ``hot back up'' for the ISIS system; and regular monitoring of all CRS
    systems for actual and attempted unauthorized intrusions.
        We recognize that information technology developments create
    dramatic new research and communications capabilities, but many of
    these same developments also lead to proliferation of new tools for
    serious attack or mischief. CRS is preparing a multi-year plan for
    enhancing its research capabilities by making appropriate use of
    technologies and technical expertise in support of legislative services
    for the Congress. This plan will require more robust security measures
    designed to meet the increasing threats presented by these
    technological innovations. The Library and CRS will continue to assess
    the need for additional staff and other resources necessary to meet
    continuing, changing, and increasingly complex security challenges. Any
    additional staff must be expert in the development of security systems
    themselves and the underlying hardware and software that make them
    possible.
        Question. When and by how much did the Library change the arrearage
    time estimates?
        Answer. In 1998, as part of its request to Congress for release of
    funds for the initial purchase of the ILS, the Library proposed revised
    arrearage elimination targets. These revised targets, based on the
    number of arrearage reduction staff and the estimated amount of their
    time that would be devoted to planning for, implementing, and adjusting
    to working on the Library's new ILS (Integrated Library System), are to
    eliminate the non-rare print and map arrearages by September 2004; and
    to reduce the special format arrearages 80 percent by June 2007. The
    original goals were to eliminate the non-rare print arrearages and to
    reduce the special format arrearages 80 percent by December 2000.
        Even with the impact of diverting a large contingent of our staff
    to plan for, be trained on, and implement the ILS, the Library is still
    ahead of its revised target for reducing the arrearages. Non-rare book
    arrearages were reduced from 242,611 to 153,826 during fiscal 1999--
    well ahead of the goal of 173,918. Total non-print arrearages were
    18,821,596 items at the end of fiscal 1999--again, much ahead of the
    target of 21,062,695.

                                     UNPROCESSED ARREARAGES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                                     [121 Months--Showing changes since Fiscal 1989]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          9/30/89         9/30/99         Change         Pct. Chg.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total items in arrearage........................      39,682,153      19,793,689     -19,888,464           -50.1
                                                     ===============================================================
    Print materials, total..........................       4,042,526         972,093      -3,070,433           -76.0
        Books.......................................         893,030         153,826        -739,204           -82.8
        Microforms..................................         587,473  ..............        -587,473          -100.0
        Serials (Pieces)............................       2,562,023         818,267      -1,743,756           -68.1
                                                     ===============================================================
    Special Materials, total........................      35,639,627      18,821,596     -16,818,031           -47.2
        Manuscripts.................................      13,641,784       9,198,697      -4,443,087           -32.6
        Maps........................................          64,000          25,787         -38,213           -59.7
        Moving-image materials......................         630,259         322,828        -307,431           -48.8
        Music.......................................       5,994,000       2,542,365      -3,451,635           -57.6
        Pictorial Materials.........................      13,060,480       5,482,052      -7,578,428           -58.0
        Rare books..................................         332,000         123,801        -208,199           -62.7
        Sound recordings............................       1,917,104       1,126,066        -791,038           -41.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               LIBRARY SERVICES/MIS QUARTERLY ARREARAGE INVENTORY--SEPTEMBER 1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Acquired                Processed                Net Change
                     Service Unit                  Arrearage Size --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrearage Size
                                                      June 1999         Items      Percent       Items      Percent       Items      Percent    Sept. 1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law Library..................................         643,305         663,518    103.1         595,286     92.5          68,232     10.6         711,537
    Library Services.............................      18,175,935       1,583,679      8.7         677,462      3.7         906,217      5.0      19,082,152
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL..................................      18,819,240       2,247,197     11.9       1,272,748      6.8         974,449      5.2      19,793,689
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                               NEW ARREARAGE GOALS COMPUTATION--JUNE 1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Items        QTRs                                      Items to     QTRs to
                                                                      Sept. 1989      March 1998       processed    elapsed   Items per QTR     New goal         process        go     Items per QTR
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Arrearage...............................................      39,682,153      19,427,869      20,254,284  .......  ..............       7,127,925      12,299,944  .......  ..............
                                                                   =================================================================================================================================
    Total PRINT...................................................       4,042,526         682,198       3,360,328  .......  ..............  ..............         682,198  .......  ..............
    Books.........................................................         893,030         243,872         649,158       34          19,093  ..............         243,872       26           9,380
    Microforms....................................................         587,473  ..............         587,473       34          17,279  ..............  ..............       26  ..............
    Serials (Pieces)..............................................       2,562,023         438,326       2,123,697       34          62,462  ..............         438,326       26          16,859
                                                                   =================================================================================================================================
    Total NON PRINT...............................................      35,639,627      18,745,671      16,893,956  .......  ..............       7,127,925      11,617,746  .......  ..............
    Manuscripts...................................................      13,641,784       7,727,099       5,914,685       34         173,961       2,728,357       4,998,742       37         135,101
    Maps..........................................................          64,000          23,414          40,586       34           1,194          12,800          10,614       37             287
    Moving-image materials........................................         630,259         302,882         327,377       34           9,629         126,052         176,830       37           4,779
    Music.........................................................       5,994,000       2,565,890       3,428,110       34         100,827       1,198,800       1,367,090       37          36,948
    Pictorial Materials...........................................      13,060,480       6,730,670       6,329,810       34         186,171       2,612,096       4,118,574       37         111,313
    Rare books....................................................         332,000         135,805         196,195       34           5,770          66,400          69,405       37           1,876
    Sound recordings..............................................       1,917,104       1,259,911         657,193       34          19,329         383,421         876,490       37          23,689
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Goal: Zero by September 30, 2004 (26 QTRs). Books, Microforms, Serials (Pieces), and Maps.
    Goal: Twenty percent of September 1989 by June 30, 2007 (37 QTRs). Manuscripts, Moving-image materials, Music, Pictorial Materials, Rare books, and Sound recordings.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Congress authorized the Architect of
    the Capitol to acquire on behalf of the Library a facility in Culpeper,
    Virginia, to establish a National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. As
    your statement indicates, the owner of the facility, the Packard
    Humanities Institute, has now come forward with an extraordinary offer
    to provide up-front funding of about $66 million to complete renovation
    of the facility. The government is being asked to fund 25 percent or
    $16.5 million of the cost.
        How can Congress help show its support for this generous offer?
        Answer. The Congress can show its support for this project and its
    appreciation to the donor in two important ways. First, we ask that the
    Congress approve the amendment to the Culpeper acquisition legislation
    (Public Law 105-144), that was recently submitted to our authorizing
    committees, whereby the donor would retain ownership of the property
    until the project is completed and the Architect of the Capitol is
    authorized to reimburse the donor up to $11.5 million. We expect that
    this would enable the Library to finish the facility three years sooner
    than is currently planned, with an expected savings to the government
    of about $6 million. Second, we ask that the Congress approve the
    Architect's fiscal 2001 budget request of $5 million for the Culpeper
    facility. This is the second installment on the government's $16.5
    million contribution to the Culpeper project.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library's National Digital Library
    Program has been highly successful in providing public access to high
    quality information about American history and culture. I noted in your
    statement that the Library is the 1999 winner of the Global Information
    Infrastructure Award for Education. This program was established as a
    five-year project supported primarily by private funding--on a three-
    to-one private/public match, or $45 million private funding to $15
    million public funding.
        The Library's Digital Futures initiative, totaling $21.3 million,
    assumes that the appropriations will be required to fund the majority
    of the on-going efforts.
        Why is the Library proposing that the majority of the funding for
    the Digital Futures initiative would be from appropriated sources?
        Answer. The National Digital Library Program (NDLP) was established
    as a five-year pioneering program to share electronically--for first
    time--the content of the Library of Congress American history
    collections with the wider public. This initiative was aimed at proving
    that core library commitment to accessibility could be greatly advanced
    in the new electronic environment.
        We are happy to report that the NDLP has been a success so far. In
    fact, more than five million full-text primary treasures of American
    history are on-line or in the pipeline, and the utility of this
    material is demonstrated by the fact that we receive millions of hits
    each day. Today, the Library is the world leader in providing high-
    quality educational materials on the Internet--we are almost alone in
    providing our content both free of charge and with authoritative
    explanatory material.
        The next phase of the project, Digital Futures, will bring an
    integrated and interdependent program to acquire, store, preserve, and
    share digital materials to the Library--meeting the requirements of our
    mission in the digital realm in addition to traditional media.
        We approached private sector sponsors for seed money to start the
    landmark NDLP initiative. Private sector donors with whom we have had
    lengthy discussions, see the Library's digital efforts as an on-going
    mission effort rather than a time-limited project appropriate for
    private funding. We doubt our ability to continue raising private funds
    at the level raised for the development of the NDLP. In addition, we
    cannot risk losing any part of this program. By relying on private
    funds, we are placing the success of the total program at risk, which
    could leave the Library as merely a ``museum of books'' in the future.
    Thanks to the success of the unique public-private partnership that the
    NDLP has been, the Library is poised to transform our traditional
    library services into electronic services which will continue to meet
    the information needs of the Congress and its constituents.
        Question. Dr. Billington, as part of the fiscal 2000 budget, the
    Congress appropriated $600,000 to support a cooperative effort with an
    educational archive to digitize materials related to ethnic groups of
    California, including Japanese Americans.
        Please give the committee a brief update on the status of this
    project.
        Also, what kinds of other digital collaborations are you involved
    in and what efforts are you taking with other institutions to establish
    a proper division of labor?
        Answer. An important part of the Library's digital strategy is to
    work in collaboration with other institutions. Currently we have taken
    a leadership role in four types of collaborations: Content; Technology;
    Research and Development; and Distribution.
        Through our leadership in the area of Content, the Library has
    collaborations with 36 U.S. libraries and archives to digitize unique
    and important historical materials--which help us to tell the multi-
    medial story of America. In the Technology area, we are collaborating
    with other national libraries and the information industry on technical
    standards and the exchange of digital content in a distributed network
    environment. Our leadership in Research and Development is helping to
    sponsor the National Science Foundation's Digital Library 2
    Initiatives. This is a multi-year grant program to fund research that
    addresses solutions to building, managing and navigating amongst
    complex digital libraries. Finally, in Distribution, we are
    collaborating with private sector publishers and vendors to help
    distribute this digital content more widely.
        One recent content collaboration with the California Digital
    Library will result in the digitization of materials related to ethnic
    groups in California, including Japanese Americans. We expect that this
    project will contain about 35,000 items, including oral histories,
    manuscripts and images--unique material that is an important part of
    the American experience. We need to identify, digitize, and make
    available more such materials on immigration and our ethnic heritage.
        Future collaborations can be even more important. It is apparent to
    us that no one institution can do all that is required to address the
    many dimensions of building, sustaining, and delivering digital content
    and services. We are playing a critical leadership role in helping to
    define material content, technical standards, and services. This is
    especially true as we work with other archives to make the large
    national asset of high quality educational content widely available to
    citizens everywhere. We envision that the future will include many
    institutional participants in a large network of libraries.
        Question. Dr. Billington, last year, the Congress approved a
    succession plan for CRS and Library Services. This year, I see that you
    are now including the Law Library in your succession plan initiative.
        Update the Committee on the status of your succession planning
    initiative. Also, outline the challenges of attracting ``the best and
    brightest'' for careers at the Library of Congress.
        Answer. This is the third year of the Library's succession planning
    program. This program started with the Congressional Research Service
    (CRS) and was extended to Library Services in fiscal 2000. We are now
    including the Law Library in the fiscal 2001 budget request.
        The basic concept for succession planning is the selection from
    departing staff of a very small number of critical positions which will
    mentor and transfer knowledge to their replacement. Our vision is
    building for the future--not replicating the past.
        Overall, our experience in attracting the ``best and brightest''
    candidates has been much like that of other government agencies--it is
    difficult to recruit graduate students to public service, particularly
    minority students. A parallel challenge is retention of talent. We face
    a particularly critical challenge in recruiting foreign law specialists
    for the Law Library, not only because 60 percent of its legal staff
    will be eligible to retire in fiscal 2004, but also because of the
    difficulty in recruiting persons from a limited pool of qualified
    applicants who have highly specialized qualifications in foreign and
    comparative law. It is difficult to compete with private sector
    employers who can offer higher salaries and bonuses to new and
    experienced employees. Also, we are burdened by the lengthy federal
    hiring process. The private sector can make ``on the spot'' offers to
    top candidates--in fact--some other federal agencies can move faster
    using streamlined/abbreviated hiring processes.
        The Library has a great many advantages to offer to prospective
    employees: a challenging and rewarding work environment, which rewards
    motivation, creativity, and learning; attractive and competitive career
    advancement; competitive benefits packages; and job stability.
    Nationally and internationally, professional librarians view the
    Library of Congress as the ``ultimate'' worksite. Professional public
    policy analysts are attracted to employment with the Library for the
    close proximity to the Congress and the legislative process.
        We have used every means possible to cast a wide net for finding
    the ``best and brightest'' for the Library. Some of those include: the
    Graduate Recruit Program and Law Recruit Program; on-site recruiting
    visits to top public policy schools nationwide; recruitment at law
    schools, through legal directories, and at library schools; Junior
    Fellows Program; and expanding use of the Internet for advertising
    employment opportunities.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library has been involved in the
    development of the Capitol Visitor's Center.
        Can you give us an update on where things stand with the Library's
    involvement at this time?
        Answer. We have been Involved in the development of the Capitol
    Visitor's Center since 1991. Our involvement has two main aspects.
    First, with the auditorium, which we anticipate will be developed in a
    way that will contribute to the Center's mission--providing a unique
    educational experience for visitors to the capital. The auditorium will
    also provide the opportunity for the Library to highlight our audio-
    visual collections in ways we cannot do presently; the only venue we
    have available currently is the Pickford Theater, which seats only 64
    persons. Second, with a tunnel to connect the Visitor's Center to the
    Jefferson Building, which we believe should be considered an integral
    part of this project. The concept of a tunnel was first raised by
    Members in the House and the Senate in 1991. We commissioned a study
    (issued in 1997) by the Capitol Visitor Center architects showing that
    it was technically feasible. We believe any Visitor Center which shows
    the history of the U.S. Congress should also celebrate the
    extraordinary achievement which is its Library.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library is requesting $2 million to
    begin off-site storage operations at Fort Meade. I understand that the
    Library's first off-site book storage module will be ready to use at
    the end of 2000.
        What book storage problems exist now?
        How will the new book storage modules alleviate space problems in
    the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Buildings?
        Answer. Currently, more than 50,000 books are stored on the floors
    in the Jefferson and Adams buildings' stacks. We estimate that our book
    collections grow at the rate of 300,000 annually, or about 1,200 books
    per day.
        Opening Fort Meade Module #1 will have a major impact on
    alleviation of the space problems in the Jefferson and Adams buildings.
    Once the space is freed up on Capitol Hill, we will be able to get
    books off the floor in both buildings.
        We need the fiscal 2001 funding we have requested for short-term
    staff to shift the collections that remain on Capitol Hill. Our plan is
    to interfile the books currently on the floor into the correct order
    with books on similar subjects. We will then do a one-time shift of the
    materials to get the books close to the reading rooms where they are
    used. This effort will leave sufficient space in each area for the
    anticipated future growth of our book collections. After the initial
    accelerated transfer of items to Fort Meade Module #1, we plan to adopt
    a book-in/book-out process--in other words, transfer about 1,200 items
    each day from Capitol Hill to Fort Meade.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library has been involved in
    developing an on-going preservation project, mass deacidification, for
    many years now. In fact, the Congress appropriated $11.5 million in
    1984 for this effort. I understand that the 1984 funds are nearly
    expired and you are requesting $1.2 million to permanently fund a mass
    deacidification program.
        Does the Library believe a cost-effective mass deacidification
    process is now available?
        How many items has the Library already treated?
        And, what is the Library's plan for treating its entire paper-based
    collections?
        Answer. Deacidification is one of the most cost-effective
    preservation measures used to make books and other paper materials last
    for hundreds of years. Deacidification is an excellent example of
    ``cost avoidance'' in that it neutralizes the acid in paper and
    prevents paper from becoming overly brittle and unusable in only a few
    decades. On average, a deacidified book will last for 300-800 years.
    The total cost for selecting, treating, and refiling a book today is
    about $15. If the same book is left to become totally brittle, the
    future cost for microfilming or electronically copying it would be more
    than ten times as expensive. Amortized over the first three hundred
    years after treatment, the annualized preservation cost for saving a
    book through deacidification is only five cents. In addition, the
    fiscal 2001 request allows for an incentive plan which may result in an
    overall 16.7 percent cost reduction.
        To date, the Library has successfully deacidified over 260,000
    books.
        Our deacidification ``plan'' is a proposal for a 30-year program
    that would resolve the Library's acidic book problem within the next
    generation. We propose to deacidify 5.3 million existing acidic books
    (one out of three in our collection), plus 100,000 new acidic volumes
    that are acquired each year (primarily from foreign publishers). Over
    the 30-year period, this program will preserve about 8.5 million books.
        To accomplish this, we will start with treating 100,000 books and
    one million pages of manuscript material in fiscal 2001. In Year-5
    through Year-30, we would treat 300,000 books per year, plus
    manuscripts. We do not recommend moving more than 300,000 books per
    year out of our stacks for deacidification treatment because of the
    disruptive and negative impact this would have to our reference
    services.
        After 30 years, the plan calls for a reduced, but continuing,
    funding to deacidify only manuscript materials not previously treated
    plus newly acquired acidic books.
        Question. Dr. Billington, the Library is requesting $2.5 million to
    establish permanent funding for 51 police positions authorized and
    funded initially by the 1999 Emergency Security Supplemental. The
    supplemental provided $17 million in funding for Library of Congress
    security enhancements, including $2.2 million for police staffing.
        Please provide the committee an update on your progress in hiring
    the additional police positions.
        How does the Library provide training for its police?
        Also, briefly update the committee on the status of the other
    security enhancements funded by the supplemental.
        Answer. As of February 14, 2000, 26 new police officers have been
    hired. The balance of new police officers (20) and the police
    administrative support staff (five) are projected to enter on duty in
    the second and third quarters of fiscal 2000.
        The Library provides training for police in three phases: (1) new
    hires receive mandatory training (ten weeks of basic training at the
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and eight and one-half weeks of
    orientation/certification); (2) in-service training is provided for all
    officers, including firearms, defensive tactics, CPR/First Aid
    recertification, and daily briefings at roll call; and (3) specialized
    training for officers whose positions require specific technical
    skills.
        All security enhancements are currently proceeding on schedule. We
    are continuing to work hand-in-hand with the Capitol Police and the
    Architect of the Capitol implementing the security enhancements.
        Question. 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.
        Is the Library of Congress satisfied with the plan provided by the
    Architect and with the safety of your buildings?
        Answer. The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) gave the Library's
    Safety Office the opportunity to review the plan prior to its
    submission to the Congress. The Library's Safety Office stated to the
    AOC that the plan was insufficient. While the Library of Congress
    realizes that the AOC cannot address all of fire safety issues at once,
    we recommend that the plan include the following four additional items:
    first, a priority list of the projects to address fire safety issues.
    Priorities should be based on a joint risk assessment by AOC and the
    Library which presents a realistic assessment of the capability of the
    AOC to complete multiple projects. Second, a plan for requesting funds
    to address the fire safety issues. Third, an organized approach to the
    inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements of OSHA and NFPA.
    Fourth, a process for providing on-going reports to the Library
    demonstrating progress (milestones) towards correction of fire safety
    issues.
        For more than two years, the Library's Safety Office has vigorously
    communicated to the AOC the Library's concerns about major fire safety
    issues and the lack of progress to correct problems. Examples of the
    Library's concerns include: twenty-five percent of the sprinkler head
    change out was to be completed by February 2000, but only ten percent
    has been completed to date; the December 1999 completion date for the
    Madison Building fire alarm system upgrades was not met, and a revised
    completion date has not been provided; upgrades to the fire system in
    the Jefferson and Adams Buildings have not been competed, and the AOC
    indicates that the April 2000 test and certification completion date
    will not be met; and the smoke control design implementation was not
    completed by December 1999.
        The Library will continue to work with the AOC to resolve
    outstanding concerns.
        Question. Last year, the Library's Copyright Office increased
    registration filing fees.
        What is the status of that fee increase and what are your
    projections for the future?
        Answer. In July of 1999, the Copyright Office increased
    registration filing fee from $20 to $30. While fee receipts are higher
    as a result of this increase, there has been a drop in demand for
    registration.
        The Copyright Office is forecasting $20,800,000 in fees for fiscal
    2000. This projection is consistent with the impact on registrations
    filings that was seen following the last fee increase (in January of
    1991, filings declined seven and one-half percent). For the last two
    months of fiscal 1999, filings declined nearly nine percent from the
    previous year, and filings were nearly ten percent lower for the first
    two months of fiscal 2000. The Copyright Office expects the fee
    increase will result in approximately ten percent fewer filings than in
    fiscal 1998, followed by a slow recovery over several years.
        Approximately twenty percent of filings still arrive with
    insufficient fees--creating an extra workload. Most filers, however,
    remit the required additional fee when requested to do so.
        The Copyright Office projects fee receipts of $21,000,000 in fiscal
    2001. If receipts exceed this forecast, the excess will be transferred
    to Copyright Office ``No Year'' account. The excess funds can be used
    in future years to offset increases in expenditures and/or potentially
    to decrease the net appropriation.
        Question. Dr. Billington, last year there was some discussion about
    migrating your ``talking book'' machines to a digital format.
        Please update the committee on your efforts in this area.
        Answer. The transition from the current analog cassette talking
    book system to a digital program is both desirable and necessary, but
    must be thoroughly designed prior to implementation.
        The Library has made five assumptions in planning for the next-
    generation of talking book system: the next system will be digitally
    based; the digital medium will have improved sound quality; readers
    will be able to listen to an entire book without turning over or
    replacing the tape or disc; the ``player'' will have enhanced
    navigational capabilities (the ability to jump from the table of
    contents to a chapter, to skip through text instantaneously, one
    paragraph at a time, to skip over footnotes, to insert bookmarks,
    etc.); and finally, the system will also have the capability to include
    the full text of a book in electronic form, along with the recorded
    version.
        We will begin recording books in digital format well in advance of
    the transition. After successful small-scale tests, the Library will
    begin to produce a larger number of digital books, while the number of
    cassette players and cassette titles will be reduced. This transition
    will continue over a period of years. There are, however, several
    issues which could affect the length of time to complete transition:
    resistance to change to a new system (by older patrons) could lengthen
    the transition; the obsolescence of parts and materials (for the
    cassette players) may shorten transition; the cost of maintaining two
    parallel systems could shorten transition time; and finally, the
    availability of funds to manufacture new digital players and the
    complexity of the new system could be issues that lengthen the
    transition time frame.
        Currently, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO),
    at the request of the Library, is developing a standard for digital
    talking-book machines. A member of the Library of Congress staff is
    chairing the NISO committee. The final standard is scheduled for
    December 2000.
        It is anticipated that initiation of migration to digital talking
    books will occur in approximately five to seven years. Prior to that
    time, the Library will provide a full justification for implementation
    and request for one-time financial support.

             MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF HEARING

        [Clerk's Note.--The following statement was received by the
    subcommittee and will be inserted in the record at this point.]

     Prepared Statement of Janet S. Zagorin, Chair, Standing Committee on
             the Law Library of Congress, American Bar Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar
    Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement
    in support of the fiscal year 2001 Legislative Appropriations budget of
    the Library of Congress and its Law Library. My name is Janet Zagorin
    and I am Chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on
    the Law Library of Congress. In my non-volunteer life, I am a law
    librarian. I am currently the Director of Practice Development at
    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Joining me in this statement is Bill Orton,
    former Member of Congress from Utah, and a member of the ABA Standing
    Committee on the Law Library of Congress. We submit this statement on
    behalf of William G. Paul, President of the Association.
        The American Bar Association is the world's largest voluntary
    professional organization, and, with a membership in excess of 400,000,
    serves as the national voice of the legal profession. The ABA created
    the Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress in 1932 as a
    measure of the Association's dedication to preserving and enhancing our
    nation's Law Library and its vast collection of legal literature and
    sources. Since its inception, the Standing Committee has acted as the
    Association's liaison and voice of the legal profession concerning the
    continued development and operation of the Law Library of Congress.
        On behalf of the Association, I commend the Congress for having
    established one of the most prestigious and comprehensive legal
    collections in the world--now 2.3 million volumes strong. This year,
    the Law Library has asked for an increase in positions and funding
    which we believe is required if the Law Library is to meet
    congressional and other government demand for reference and research
    services, maintain its role as an innovator in the delivery of an
    exploding volume of electronic information, and preserve its treasures
    for future generations.
        I know that you are facing many difficult choices as you
    contemplate the Legislative Branch budget, but I hope that you will
    find a way to spare our nation's Library from any cuts in its proposed
    budget. The Library has requested an increase to meet the demands of
    its strategic plan, a changing workforce, and a rapidly changing
    digital world. The Law Library, likewise, must be able to continue to
    maintain its role as the ultimate legal resource center for Congress
    and our citizens. In spite of shrinking resources, the Law Library
    continues to provide service to the public at large in American law
    through its reading room, and on foreign and comparative law on a
    priority basis through legal specialists in its research directorate.
    An enhanced web site for the Law Library to further facilitate access
    to legal reference services is being developed.
        The Law Library is extremely grateful for the support of the
    Committee on Appropriations. As you may be aware, however, the Library
    has undergone significant reductions in staffing and services. While
    the funding the Law Library received last year enabled the Law Library
    to maintain and improve certain areas, the Library is still forced to
    confront the considerable downsizing that took place in previous years.
    Shortages in staffing are compromising the provision of comprehensive
    high-quality research and reference services and the very integrity of
    the Law Library collections. We ask for Congress' continued support in
    granting the Library the resources it needs to develop, maintain, and
    preserve its collections and its reference services, and to prevent
    further erosion of its workforce.
        Faced with the necessity of developing a leading presence in the
    electronic age while maintaining its preeminent legal collection, the
    Library of Congress must have adequate funding to remain a leader in
    serving the Congress and the nation. Without such support, the Law
    Library is unable to achieve the level of research services it believes
    Congress deserves and requires. The Law Library serves over 100,000
    users per year, with priority given to members of Congress. It supports
    over 70 hours per week of research, book circulation and legal
    reference services with a staff of only seven legal reference
    specialists. Adequate funding is needed to increase the number of
    specialists in order to keep pace with demand, including new workloads
    generated by the emergence of digital reference services. Additional
    funding is needed to support the provision of services to Congress and
    government offices in Spanish language jurisdictions, where currently
    only two legal specialists must cover 15 jurisdictions each. Further,
    at present staffing levels, only 60 percent of the 100,000 monographs
    received annually can be processed, among other shortfalls. We believe
    that proper funding for the Law Library's technical support team and
    computer systems is vitally important to ensure the integrity of its
    collections and to provide Congress with the services upon which it
    must rely.
        In addition, while the Library is a critical resource available to
    every citizen of our country, immediate access to the great resources
    of the Law Library should be made more available to everyone--from
    isolated senior citizens to urban school children--via the Internet.
    Again, however, this only can be accomplished by increasing funding for
    the Law Library's technical support team and computer services support.
        Succession planning has become paramount for the Law Library. The
    expected retirement of nearly 60 percent of its foreign law specialists
    by 2004 will require an unprecedented transfer of knowledge and skills
    to new staff, without which the Law Library's ability to deliver
    expected services--from research to analysis to collections development
    and other required tasks--will be seriously impaired. This in turn will
    erode its ability to support legislative initiatives, case law
    adjudication, foreign policy decision-making and other vital functions.
    We ask Congress to fund succession planning in the Law Library so that
    the services on which so many rely will not be compromised.
        Fiscal year 2001 will follow a ``Year of Great Transition'' for the
    Library of Congress. One of the Library's building blocks for this
    transition is the expansion of the Global Legal Information Network
    (GLIN). GLIN is the digital future of the Law Library and is the Law
    Library's contribution to the overall digital program of the Library of
    Congress. What began as a simple card file over fifty years ago has
    grown into an international network of the world's legislative bodies
    sharing via the Internet the full text of their nation's laws and
    regulations. The GLIN database contains information on over 75,000 laws
    and regulations from 46 countries, and provides Congress with a direct
    link to foreign, comparative, and international laws.
        The Law Library collections have contributed significantly to the
    content of the Library's National Digital Library. Through a program
    entitled, ``A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation,'' the Law Library
    is making available through the Internet congressional documents and
    debates from the founding of the national government in 1774 through
    the 24th Congress in 1837. By the end of the project, documents and
    debates from the first 42 Congresses--including debates on ratification
    of the Constitution, records of the federal convention, and the debates
    and laws of the Continental Congress--will be available on-line. The
    ABA hopes that you will approve the budget request, which will enable
    the Law Library to continue adding Congressional records to the
    Internet. The funding requested for the Library's automation projects,
    including GLIN, will undoubtedly strengthen and enhance its efficiency
    and effectiveness internally and globally, in serving the Congress, in
    expanding public access to its invaluable collections, and in
    sustaining its role as the leader and progressive host of this vast
    knowledge.
        Giving the Library of Congress and its Law Library the support
    needed to preserve the knowledge and ideas that sustain us as a
    community and a nation would be a significant gift to our country. The
    Library of Congress is the oldest federal cultural institution in our
    country, serving Congress as its priority client, all federal agencies,
    as well as state and local governments. But it is also important to
    remember that the nation at large is served by the Library. As
    technology and the information age advance, new opportunities to serve
    Congress and the nation are available, but at the same time new
    challenges exist that make support for the Library even more crucial.
    At this critical time, it is imperative that we continue to support
    this great institution. In a turbulent and challenging world, the Law
    Library represents a powerful reaffirmation that we are a democratic
    nation of laws and that access to our laws is, and should remain, open
    and free.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar
    Association appreciates your courtesy in allowing us to present this
    statement to you today. We hope that you will look most favorably upon
    the budget request of the Library of Congress and its Law Library.

                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY LINDY L. PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Chairman William Roth.
    We welcome the Honorable William Roth, who is chairman of the
    Joint Committee on Taxation, and he is joined by Lindy Paull,
    the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee.
        The committee has requested $6,747,000, which is an
    increase of 4.65 percent over fiscal year 2000. Senator Roth,
    we are honored to have you and welcome. We would be happy to
    hear what you have to share with us.
        Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
    having us here this morning. As you know, we have a written
    statement which will go into greater detail than my oral
    comments.
        Senator Bennett. It will be included in the record.
        Senator Roth. As you know, we have requested for the Joint
    Committee a $291,000 increase for the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation. This increase is solely attributable to
    increases in personnel expenses: $228,000 is for personnel cost
    of living increases; $61,000 is for 1 percent meritorious
    increases in personnel expenses; and, there is $2,000 for the
    projected cost of employee transit benefits for the fiscal
    year. There is no overall change in the appropriation for non-
    personnel expenses.
        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Joint Committee
    included $200,000 to fund a report on the overall state of the
    Federal tax system, together with recommendations for possible
    simplification. This report was required under the IRS Reform
    Act and, as you may recall, this amount was included in the
    Joint Committee's fiscal year 2000 appropriation by this
    subcommittee. We are requesting equivalent funds for the study
    for fiscal year 2001 to enable the Joint Committee staff to
    complete its work on this study.

                                    WORKLOAD

        I would like to comment briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the
    workload of the Joint Committee. As you know, much of the work
    performed by the Joint Committee staff is the preparation of
    revenue estimates for Members of Congress. I think the record
    here is pretty outstanding. During calendar year 1999 the Joint
    Committee staff received 4,234 requests for revenue estimates
    and other assistance from Members. That is an increase of 55
    percent over the requests received in 1998, and nearly 400 more
    than the requests for the entire 105th Congress.
        The Joint Committee has disposed of 3,297, or 77.9 percent
    of the requests received in 1999, and has responded to 1,000
    more requests during 1999 than the average number of responses
    for each of 1997 and 1998. I think this demonstrates an
    enormous increase in Joint Committee staff productivity.
        The Joint Committee staff has completed two major studies
    mandated by the IRS Reform Act: a study of the present-law
    system of penalties and interest, and a study of taxpayer
    confidentiality. These reports total more than 1,500 pages.
    Work on the studies placed a tremendous drain on our staff
    resources at the same time that the Congress was considering
    the tax relief bill last summer and the expiring provisions
    bill last fall.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I want to thank the subcommittee for its continued
    recognition of what I think is the very important role that the
    Joint Committee on Taxation plays in the development of revenue
    legislation, and I hope that it will continue to support the
    operation of this committee in the coming fiscal year.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this written
    testimony to the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Senate
    Committee on Appropriations on behalf of the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation request for the Joint Committee on Taxation (the ``Joint
    Committee'').
        The funding we are requesting for the Joint Committee represents
    the minimum amount necessary to finance the operations of the Joint
    Committee for fiscal year 2001. The Joint Committee provides essential
    services to the Congress that are not duplicated by any other
    Congressional or Executive Branch office. Failure to provide the
    requested funding will jeopardize the ability of the Joint Committee to
    provide these necessary services.
        We want to thank the Subcommittee for its continued recognition of
    the important role that the Joint Committee plays in the development of
    revenue legislation. We are pleased that the Subcommittee has
    repeatedly acknowledged the needs of the Joint Committee, and we hope
    that the Subcommittee will continue to support the operations of the
    Joint Committee for fiscal year 2001.
        Key points relating to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation request
    are as follows:
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an appropriation for fiscal year
            2001 of $6,747,000, an increase over the fiscal year 2000
            appropriation of $291,000. This represents a 4.5 percent
            increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The increase
            is attributable to (1) personnel cost-of-living increases
            ($228,000), (2) 1-percent meritorious increases for personnel
            expenses ($61,000), and (3) the projected costs of employee
            transit benefits ($2,000) for the fiscal year.
      --As required by the fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriation
            Bill, the 0.38 percent rescission amount applicable to the
            Joint Committee is $24,533. The Joint Committee staff allocated
            $12,000 of this amount to Other Services and $12,533 to
            Equipment. These amounts have been restored for purposes of
            calculating the fiscal year 2001 appropriation request.
      --Proposed adjustments have been made to the allocation of
            nonpersonnel expenses to better reflect actual experience, but
            no overall change in the appropriation for nonpersonnel
            expenses is requested for fiscal year 2001.
      --Under section 4002(a) of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
            1998, subject to amounts being specifically appropriated for
            this purpose, the Joint Committee is required to report at
            least once each Congress to the Senate Committee on Finance and
            the House Committee on Ways and Means on the overall state of
            the Federal tax system, together with recommendations with
            respect to possible simplification proposals and other matters
            relating to the administration of the Federal tax system. The
            Senate appropriated $200,000 for this purpose in the Joint
            Committee's fiscal year 2000 appropriation, and this increase
            was accepted in the conference on the Legislative Branch
            appropriations. The Joint Committee is requesting that the
            Subcommittee appropriate equivalent funds for this study for
            fiscal year 2001 to enable the Joint Committee staff to
            complete its work on this project.
        Additional details relating to this appropriation request are
    provided below.
               summary of fiscal year 2001 appropriation request
        The following summarizes the Joint Committee's appropriation
    request for fiscal year 2001:

    Personnel Costs:
        Personnel compensation....................................$6,145,000
        Transit benefits..........................................     2,000
    Nonpersonnel Funding:
        Travel....................................................    12,000
        Rent, communications, and utilities.......................    30,000
        Printing..................................................       500
        Other services............................................   126,500
        Supplies and materials....................................   154,000
        Equipment.................................................   277,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total fiscal year 2001 request.......................... 6,747,000

        As required by the fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriation
    Bill, the 0.38 percent rescission amount applicable to the Joint
    Committee is $24,533. The Joint Committee staff allocated $12,000 of
    this amount to Other Services and $12,533 to Equipment. These amounts
    have been restored for purposes of calculating the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation request.

               DETAILS OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST

    Personnel Expenses

        Cost-of-living.--Pursuant to information provided by the House
    Office of Finance, a 4.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar
    year 2000 and a 3.7 percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar year
    2001 were assumed in calculating proposed cost-of-living adjustments
    for personnel expenses. Using these assumptions, proposed cost-of-
    living adjustments for fiscal year 2001 equal $228,000.
        Meritorious increases.--A requested increase of $61,000 is included
    in the appropriation to cover the cost of 1-percent meritorious
    increases for personnel expenses.
        Transit benefits.--A requested increase of $2,000 is included in
    the appropriation request to cover the projected costs of transit
    benefits provided to Joint Committee employees.
        FTEs.--The fiscal year 2000 appropriation included 3.0 additional
    FTEs for the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee staff is in the
    process of hiring for these new positions at this time. The hiring
    process for Ph.D. economists is such that the Joint Committee staff
    interviews in January and February for economists who will generally be
    available in the summer or fall of the year. Thus, the Joint Committee
    expects that the hiring for these additional FTEs will be completed by
    the end of the fiscal year. No change in FTEs for fiscal year 2001 over
    fiscal year 2000 is requested.
        While no increase in FTEs is requested for fiscal year 2001,
    additional ongoing responsibilities have been assigned to the Joint
    Committee as a result of the IRS Reform Act. Under the IRS Reform Act,
    the Joint Committee is required to prepare a complexity analysis of all
    revenue provisions of widespread applicability to individuals and small
    businesses. In addition, the IRS Reform Act requires the Joint
    Committee to provide staffing and an annual report in connection with
    annual joint review of six Congressional committees on the operations
    of the Internal Revenue Service. The first of these reviews occurred in
    calendar year 1999 and a review will occur in each of calendar years
    2000 through 2003.
        Under section 4002(a) of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
    1998 (the ``IRS Reform Act''), subject to amounts being specifically
    appropriated for this purpose, the Joint Committee is required to
    report at least once each Congress to the Senate Committee on Finance
    and the House Committee on Ways and Means on the overall state of the
    Federal tax system, together with recommendations with respect to
    possible simplification proposals and other matters relating to the
    administration of the Federal tax system. The Senate appropriated
    $200,000 for this purpose in the Joint Committee's fiscal year 2000
    appropriation, and this increase was accepted in the conference on the
    Legislative Branch appropriations. The Joint Committee staff has begun
    planning for this study and it is anticipated that a study of this
    magnitude will require significant time and staff resources. It is
    requested that the Subcommittee appropriate equivalent funds for this
    study for fiscal year 2001 to enable the Joint Committee staff to
    continue its work on this project. If this project proves to require
    even more time and resources than projected, a larger appropriation may
    be requested for this purpose in the future.
    Nonpersonnel Expenses
        In general.--The Joint Committee is requesting no increase in
    nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal year 2001. However, nonpersonnel
    expenses in certain categories have been reallocated to reflect more
    accurately the actual expenses that are anticipated in these
    categories.
        Rent, communications, and utilities.--The Joint Committee request
    proposes to reallocate $3,000 from this category to other categories
    for fiscal year 2001. The amount requested in this category for fiscal
    year 2001 is an accurate estimate of the actual expenses that the Joint
    Committee will incur.
        Printing.--The Joint Committee requests that $500 be reallocated to
    this category of expense from the category of rent, communications, and
    utilities for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation had
    no amount allocated for printing, but actual Joint Committee expenses
    for fiscal year 1999 were $480. Similar expenses are anticipated for
    fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
        Other services.--The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for other
    services is $124,000. The fiscal year 1999 actual expenses attributable
    to this category was $124,117 and the Joint Committee anticipates some
    additional expenses in fiscal year 2001 in this category. Reallocating
    $2,500 to this category from the category of rent, communications, and
    utilities (for a total fiscal year 2001 request of $126,500) will
    reflect more accurately projected expenses for fiscal year 2001.
        This category represents a substantial portion of the Joint
    Committee's nonpersonnel expense. The Joint Committee utilizes
    consultants and other service providers to provide services that the
    Joint Committee staff does not have the time or expertise to otherwise
    perform. For example, the needs of the Members for immediate responses
    to requests for revenue estimates and the substantial volume of
    requests that the Joint Committee staff receives each year places
    limitations on the ability of the Joint Committee staff to perform
    certain work necessary for the preparation of revenue estimates. From
    time to time, the Joint Committee staff will contract with certain
    private sector organizations to do research that the Joint Committee
    staff could not otherwise perform because of the other responsibilities
    of the staff.
        During fiscal year 1999 and 2000, certain of the amounts allocated
    to consultant contracts included services to update the Joint Committee
    document tracking system software and hardware; this project is
    discussed more fully in the equipment category below. There may be some
    residual consultant services required in fiscal year 2001 in connection
    with this effort.
        Supplies and materials.--The Joint Committee is requesting no
    change in the amount appropriated for this category for fiscal year
    2001. Actual expenses for fiscal year 1999 were $150,235 and the amount
    appropriated for fiscal year 2000 is $154,000. The fiscal year 2001
    expenses are expected to be substantially equivalent to fiscal year
    2000 expenses.
        Equipment.--No increase in this category is requested for fiscal
    year 2001 over fiscal year 2000. Anticipated expenses in this category
    include: $80,000 for hardware and software maintenance; $50,000 for
    Xerox maintenance and costs; $100,000 for the purchase of document
    scanners, CD-ROM writers, and storage for expansions of the Joint
    Committee's document tracking system; and $35,000 for software for
    document tracking and an electronic mail server.
        The purchase of equipment represents the single largest item of
    nonpersonnel expenses for the Joint Committee. The large volume of
    documents that the Joint Committee is required to produce in a very
    short time frame during the legislative process requires the use of
    sophisticated and technologically advanced computer and reproduction
    equipment. The Joint Committee staff upgrades computer software,
    hardware, and reproduction machines frequently to ensure that Members
    receive adequate service. During the consideration of the Taxpayer
    Relief Act of 1999, a number of Members complimented the Joint
    Committee staff on the speed with which the staff responded to the
    constantly changing provisions of the bill. The Joint Committee staff
    cannot provide this type of service to the Members unless it has the
    technology tools necessary for this type of sophisticated computer
    modeling.
        In 1994, the Joint Committee staff implemented a computerized data
    base to track Member requests. During fiscal year 1999, the Joint
    Committee staff began upgrades to this data base system that will
    transition the Joint Committee staff from a system for processing
    Member requests that is paper-based and time consuming to a paperless
    system that will allow the Joint Committee staff to process and monitor
    all Member requests electronically from the time a request is received
    until the final response is delivered to the requesting Member. This
    upgraded system is expected to improve substantially the efficiency of
    the Joint Committee staff in responding to Member requests.
        In addition, this upgraded database system will maintain a complete
    electronic record of each request received from a Member of Congress
    and will enable real time tracking of the status of each such request.
    The Joint Committee staff anticipates that there may be some residual
    expenses relating to implementation of this new document tracking
    system during fiscal year 2001. For example, the Joint Committee staff
    hopes to be able to convert existing files of Member requests and
    responses to this new system. This will be a longer term project that
    will require some expense in fiscal year 2001.

     REVIEW OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OPERATIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR
                                      1999

        As is demonstrated below, the Joint Committee staff faced a
    significantly greater workload in 1999 compared to 1998. The Joint
    Committee staff saw substantial increases in the number of revenue
    estimate requests received from Members during 1999. In addition, the
    Joint Committee staff devoted significant staff resources to its work
    on two studies mandated by the IRS Reform Act.
        Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the
    Joint Committee staff for calendar year 1999. The attachments include
    the following information:
      --Attachment A--information relating to the legislative tax reports
            (Committee and Conference Reports) on which the Joint Committee
            staff worked for the revenue-related legislation considered by
            the House Committee on Ways and Means and/or the Senate
            Committee on Finance;
      --Attachment B--a listing of all documents published by the Joint
            Committee staff during calendar year 1999;
      --Attachment C--a graph showing the number of Joint Committee
            requests received by the Joint Committee from Members of
            Congress for revenue estimates and other assistance during the
            period 1985 through 1999;
      --Attachment D--a table providing information on revenue estimate
            requests and Joint Committee staff responses to various
            categories of requesting Members; and
      --Attachment E--information relating to the Joint Committee staff's
            statutorily mandated duty to review large income tax refunds.

    Tax legislative reports

        The Joint Committee staff prepared 12 Committee and Conference
    reports relating to tax legislation considered by the Congress in 1999
    and provided assistance on 5 trade Committee reports. The Joint
    Committee staff also prepares committee reports for the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee relating to negotiated treaties and protocols for
    consideration by the Senate. During 1999, the Joint Committee assisted
    the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in its consideration of nine
    income tax treaties and protocols. A complete listing of these reports
    is included at Attachment A.

    Joint Committee staff publications

        In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
    Joint Committee staff published 99 documents during 1999, including
    pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
    markups and conference action (see Attachment B). All Joint Committee
    staff publications are accessible from the Joint Committee's web page.
        Among the documents published by the Joint Committee staff in 1999
    was a 629-page study of present-law penalty and interest provisions
    mandated by the IRS Reform Act. The Joint Committee staff was able to
    meet the statutorily imposed deadline of July 22, 1999, for
    transmitting this study to the Congress despite the tremendous demands
    on Joint Committee staff resources made in connection with the
    consideration at the same time of H.R. 2488 (the ``Taxpayer Refund and
    Relief Act of 1999'').
        At the beginning of 1999, the Joint Committee staff published a
    document providing background information relating to the Joint
    Committee on Taxation. This document was recently updated for 2000. An
    updated version of this document is included as Attachment F.
        The Joint Committee staff plays an active role in formulating and
    presenting Congressional views on issues raised by the Administration's
    negotiation of tax treaties and other tax-related agreements. The Joint
    Committee staff prepares pamphlets for the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee containing detailed descriptions of the provisions of
    negotiated tax treaties and protocols, including comparisons with the
    current U.S. model treaty, which reflects preferred U.S. treaty policy,
    and with other recent U.S. tax treaties. The pamphlets also contain
    detailed discussions of issues raised by the proposed agreements.
    During 1999, the Joint Committee staff prepared 8 documents for the
    Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in connection with hearings on
    proposed income tax treaties and protocols. The Joint Committee staff
    consulted extensively with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee in analyzing the proposed treaties and protocols and in
    preparing pamphlets and committee reports for the Committee.
        The Joint Committee staff's annual report on estimates of Federal
    tax expenditures (for fiscal years 1999-2003) was published in December
    1999.

    Revenue estimates and related analysis

        Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee
    staff's revenue estimating activity for calendar year 1999. Attachment
    C shows the number of revenue estimate requests received by the Joint
    Committee staff each year from 1985 through 1999. Since 1985, when the
    Congress was actively considering legislative proposals that led to
    enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and when data on revenue
    estimate requests was first compiled, the number of requests received
    annually has increased by 1,116 percent.
        The Joint Committee received 4,234 requests for revenue estimates
    and other assistance from Members during 1999, an increase of 55
    percent over the requests received in 1998. During 1999, the Joint
    Committee staff received more requests from Members than the total
    number of requests received for the entire 105th Congress (3,871). The
    Joint Committee staff disposed of 77.9 percent (3,297) of the requests
    received in 1999 and has approximately 1,000 requests currently
    pending. During 1999, the Joint Committee staff responded to 1,000 more
    requests than the average number of responses for each of 1997 and
    1998, demonstrating an enormous increase in Joint Committee staff
    productivity.
        Attachment D shows the Joint Committee staff's response rate to
    various categories of Members requesting revenue estimates. While it
    appears that certain categories of Members received a lower percentage
    response rate than other categories, the approximately 1,000 requests
    pending at the close of 1999 will be addressed during 2000 (i.e., they
    continue to be treated as pending requests). Thus, a more accurate
    picture of the Joint Committee staff's response rate to Members will be
    demonstrated by the final statistics at the end of 2000 for the entire
    106th Congress. The Joint Committee staff is cognizant of its
    responsibility to provide service to all Members requesting it and
    intends to continue to monitor its response rates to ensure that the
    Joint Committee staff responds to non-tax-writing Committee Members as
    well as the tax-writing Committee Members. Furthermore, the Joint
    Committee staff's new document tracking software, which is being
    installed at this time, will assist in monitoring Member requests and
    responses more easily.

    JCT staff studies, investigations, and refund review

        As noted above, the Joint Committee staff timely completed in 1999
    a study of the present-law penalty and interest provisions mandated by
    the IRS Reform Act. In addition, the IRS Reform Act also mandated that
    the Joint Committee conduct a study of the present-law protections
    relating to disclosure of tax returns and tax return information, which
    is due January 22, 2000. The Joint Committee staff will meet the
    deadline for completion of this study. While no amounts were separately
    appropriated to the Joint Committee staff to complete these studies,
    studies of this nature place significant demands on limited personnel
    resources particularly during periods of high legislative activity such
    as that experienced during 1999.
        An ongoing, statutorily mandated function of the Joint Committee is
    the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate and gift
    tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension plans, or
    real estate investment trusts in excess of $1 million. The Joint
    Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and makes
    comments or recommendations with respect to the proposed refund case to
    the IRS. Attachment E contains information concerning the Joint
    Committee staff refund review work. During fiscal year 1999, the Joint
    Committee refund staff reviewed 577 cases involving $5.81 billion in
    proposed refunds and 64 large deficiency cases. The Joint Committee
    staff raised concerns in 65 refund cases (or approximately 11.3 percent
    of the cases) and in 4 of the large deficiency cases. Errors identified
    by the Joint Committee staff produced a net reduction in refunds of
    $18.3 million in fiscal year 1999. The average annual reduction in
    refunds for the last 8 years is $11.9 million.
        During 1999, the Joint Committee staff continued its investigation
    of whether the IRS selection of tax-exempt organizations (described in
    Code sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)) and individuals associated with
    such organizations for audit has been politically motivated, including
    an analysis of the selection of such tax-exempt organizations for audit
    for reasons related to their alleged political or lobbying activities.
    This investigation represents an important exercise of the Joint
    Committee's statutorily prescribed duty of oversight of the
    administration of the Federal tax system.
        The Joint Committee staff began work in 1999 on a study of the
    effectiveness of the present-law tax rules relating to tax-motivated
    expatriation.

     ANTICIPATED WORKLOAD OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION FOR CALENDAR
                                   YEAR 2000

        During 2000, the Joint Committee staff's workload will be at least
    equivalent to what it has been in the past several years. The Joint
    Committee staff will be extensively involved in the legislative process
    to provide tax relief to the American taxpayers. Health-related revenue
    provisions are also expected to be considered as are a variety of
    pension-related provisions. The Joint Committee staff will (1) develop
    legislative proposals, (2) assist in the drafting of such proposals,
    (3) provide revenue estimates for numerous legislative options and
    amendments, (4) prepare markup documents and committee reports, and (5)
    provide additional economic analysis to the Members.
        In addition to this anticipated legislative activity, the Joint
    Committee staff will continue to satisfy its new responsibilities under
    the IRS Reform Act. The Joint Committee staff is now required to
    prepare a complexity analysis for inclusion in Committee and Conference
    reports for all revenue legislation. The Joint Committee staff is
    required to prepare materials for the use of the Congress in connection
    with joint reviews relating to the operations of the Internal Revenue
    Service that will occur during calendar years 1999-2003. The Joint
    Committee staff will complete work on its study of the effectiveness of
    the present-law tax rules in deterring tax-motivated expatriation. The
    Joint Committee staff will begin work on a comprehensive study relating
    to the complexity of the present-law tax system. The Joint Committee
    staff's experience with the other studies mandated by the IRS Reform
    Act indicates that this study will require substantial staff resources
    that may exceed the additional amounts appropriated to the Joint
    Committee for fiscal year 2000. The Joint Committee staff hopes to
    complete a study that will provide the Congress with relevant
    information on the sources of complexity in the present-law tax system
    and ways in which such complexity could be addressed.

                                    SUMMARY

        Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will approve the appropriation
    request of the Joint Committee on Taxation. We believe that this
    request is the minimum amount necessary to fund the operations of the
    Joint Committee during fiscal year 2001. The Joint Committee staff
    workload for 1999 exceeded its workload for 1998 by more than 50
    percent. There is no reason to expect that this workload will be
    reduced any time soon. If the requested funding is not provided,
    difficult decisions will be required concerning what staff activities
    can and should be funded. We hope that the Subcommittee will not force
    the Joint Committee to make these decisions.
        Mr. Chairman, we recognize fully the budgetary constraints that
    make your work so difficult. At the same time, we hope that you will
    appreciate the important role the Joint Committee on Taxation plays in
    the analysis and development of tax legislation. We firmly believe that
    the nonpartisan technical tax experts on the Joint Committee staff
    provide a service to the Congress that is not and cannot be duplicated
    by any other Congressional office.
        We respectfully urge the Members of the Subcommittee to respond
    favorably to the Joint Committee's funding request for fiscal year
    2001.
     Attachment A.--1999 Tax-Related Legislative Reports Worked on by the
                    Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation

    Tax Committee Report Explanations

        H.R. 416 (Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act of 1999). H.
    Rept. 106-29. (House Ways and Means Committee report on rectification
    of certain retirement coverage errors affecting Federal employees.)
        H.R. 434 (African Growth and Opportunity Act). H. Rept. 106-19 Part
    2. (House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill.)
        H.R. 1376 (Tax Relief for Individuals Performing Services in
    Yugoslavia, Albania, the Adriatic Sea And the Northern Ionian Sea). H.
    Rept. 106-90. (House Ways and Means report on the bill to extend the
    tax benefits available with respect to services performed in a combat
    zone to services performed in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
    (Serbia/Montenegro) and certain other areas.)
        H.R. 2488 (Financial Freedom Act of 1999). H. Rept. 106-238. (House
    Ways and Means Committee report on the bill to Provide for
    Reconciliation Pursuant to Sections 105 and 211 of the Concurrent
    Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2000.)
        H.R. 2923 (Extension of Expiring Provisions and Other Time-
    sensitive Provisions). H. Rept. 106-344. (House Ways and Means
    Committee report on the bill to extend expiring provisions, to allow
    fully the nonrefundable personal credits against regular tax
    liability.)
        H.R. 3081 (Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999). H. Rept. 106-
    467. (House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill.)
        S. 331 (Budget Effects of S. 331). S. Rept. 106-37. (Senate Finance
    report on the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.)
        S. 1134 (Affordable Education Act of 1999). S. Rept. 106-54.
    (Senate Finance Committee Report on a bill to amend the Internal
    Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education
    individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school
    expenses, and to increase the maximum annual amount of contributions to
    such accounts.)
        S. 1386 (Trade Adjustment Assistant Reauthorization Act). S. Rept.
    106-119. (Senate Finance Committee Report on a bill to reauthorize
    existing trade adjustment assistance programs.)
        S. 1387 (African Growth and Opportunity Act). S. Rept. 106-112.
    (Senate Finance Committee Report on a bill to extend certain trade
    preferences to sub-Saharan African countries.)
        S. 1388 (Generalized System of Preferences Extension Act). S. Rept.
    106-137 (Senate Finance Committee Report on a bill to extend the
    Generalized System of Preferences.)
        S. 1389 (The United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act).
    S. Rept. 106-160 (Senate Finance Committee Report on a bill to provide
    additional trade benefits to certain beneficiary countries in the
    Caribbean Basin.)
        S. 1429 (Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999). S. Rept. 106-120. (Senate
    Finance Committee report on a Bill to Provide for Reconciliation
    Pursuant to Section 104 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
    fiscal year 2000.)
        S. 1792 (Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999). S. Rept. 106-201.
    (Senate Finance Committee report on the bill.)
    Tax-Related Conference Report Explanations
        H.R. 2488 (Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999). H. Rept. 106-
    289. (Conference report on the bill.)
        H.R. 1180 (Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of
    1999). H. Rept. 106-478. (Conference report on the bill.)
    Senate Foreign Relation Committee Reports:
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Estonia, S. Exec. Rept. 106-3.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Lithuania, S. Exec. Rept. 106-4.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Latvia, S. Exec. Rept. 106-5.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Venezuela, S. Exec. Rept. 106-6.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Slovenia, S. Exec. Rept. 106-7.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Italy, S. Exec. Rept. 106-8.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Tax
    Convention with Denmark, S. Exec. Rept. 106-9.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Protocol
    Amending the Tax Convention with Germany, S. Exec. Rept. 106-10.
        Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Amending
    Convention with Ireland, S. Exec. Rept. 106-11.
           Attachment B.--1999 Joint Committee on Taxation Documents
    JCS-99 Documents
        JCS-1-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
    President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Proposal. February 22, 1999
        JCS-2-99--Schedule Of Present Federal Excise Taxes (As Of January
    1, 1999). March 29, 1999
        JCS-3-99--Study Of Present-Law Penalty And Interest Provisions As
    Required By Section 3801 Of The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
    And Reform Act Of 1998 (Including Provisions Relating To Corporate Tax
    Shelters) Volumes I & II. July 22, 1999
        JCS-4-99--Strategic Plans And Budget Of The Internal Revenue
    Service, 1999--Joint Review. May 25, 1999
        JCS-5-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And The Republic Of Lithuania. Scheduled for a Hearing
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
    October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-6-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And The Republic Of Latvia. Scheduled for a Hearing
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
    October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-7-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And The Republic Of Estonia. Scheduled for a Hearing
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
    October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-8-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
    Protocol Between The United States And The Kingdom of Denmark.
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate on October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-9-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
    Protocol Between The United States And The Italian Republic. Scheduled
    for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States
    Senate on October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-10-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty And Proposed
    Protocol Between The United States And The Republic Of Venezuela.
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate on October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-11-99--Explanation Of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The
    United States And The Republic Of Slovenia. Scheduled for a Hearing
    Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate on
    October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-12-99--Explanation Of Proposed Protocol To The Convention
    Between The United States And Germany For The Avoidance Of Double
    Taxation With Respect To Taxes On Estates, Inheritances, And Gifts.
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate on October 13, 1999. October 8, 1999
        JCS-13-99--Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years
    2000-2004. December 22, 1999
    JCX-99 Documents
        JCX-1-99--List Of Expired And Expiring Federal Tax Provisions,
    1998-2008. January 20, 1999
        JCX-2-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions To Be Considered In
    Connection With The Markup Of The Miscellaneous Trade And Technical
    Corrections Act Of 1999. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee
    on Finance on January 22, 1999. January 21, 1999
        JCX-3-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 262, The ``Miscellaneous
    Trade And Technical Corrections Act Of 1999.'' Scheduled For Markup By
    The Senate Committee On Finance On January 22, 1999. January 22, 1999
        JCX-4-99--Background Information Relating To The Joint Committee On
    Taxation. February 3, 1999
        JCX-5-99--Description Of Revenue And Social Security Provisions
    Included In H.R. 416, The ``Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections
    Act''. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
    February 11, 1999. February 11, 1999
        JCX-6-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 416, The ``Federal
    Retirement Coverage Corrections Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The
    Committee On Ways And Means. February 11, 1999
        JCX-7-99--Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Incentives For
    Savings. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
    Finance on February 24, 1999. February 23, 1999
        JCX-8-99--Present-Law Tax Rules Relating To Domestic Oil And Gas
    Exploration And Production And Description Of H.R. 53 And H.R. 423.
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the
    House Committee on Ways and Means on February 25, 1999. February 23,
    1999
        JCX-9-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
    Contained In The President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Proposal. February
    25, 1999
        JCX-10-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions To Be Considered In
    Connection With The Markup Of The Work Incentives Improvement Act Of
    1999. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on March
    4, 1999. March 2, 1999
        JCX-11-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of S.
    331, The ``Work Incentives Improvement Act Of 1999.'' Scheduled for
    Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on March 4, 1999. March 2,
    1999
        JCX-12-99--Overview Of Present Law And Issues Relating To Tax And
    Savings Incentives For Education. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before
    the Senate Committee on Finance on March 3, 1999. March 2, 1999
        JCX-13-99--Overview Of Present-Law Rules And Economic Issues In
    International Taxation. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Senate
    Committee on Finance on March 11, 1999. March 9, 1999
        JCX-14-99--Analysis Of Issues Relating To Social Security
    Individual Private Accounts. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Senate Committee on Finance on March 16, 1999. March 15, 1999
        JCX-15-99--Tax Treatment Of Structured Settlement Arrangements.
    Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
    Oversight on March 18, 1999. March 16, 1999
        JCX-16-99--Overview Of Present-Law Tax Rules And Issues Relating To
    Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans. Scheduled for a Public Hearing
    Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and
    Means on March 23, 1999. March 22, 1999
        JCX-17-99--Description Of Present Law And A Proposal Relating To
    Tax Relief For Personnel In The Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia (Serbia/
    Montenegro), Albania, The Adriatic Sea, And The Northern Ionian Sea.
    Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on April
    13, 1999. April 13, 1999
        JCX-18-99--Overview Of Present Law And Issues Relating To
    Individual Income Taxes. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Senate Committee on Finance on April 15, 1999. April 14, 1999
        JCX-19-99--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
    Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1998.
    Prepared by the Internal Revenue Service. April 29, 1999
        JCX-20-99--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of Proposals Relating To
    Education Incentives. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on
    Finance on May 19, 1999. May 17, 1999
        JCX-21-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of
    Proposals Relating To Education Incentives. May 17, 1999
        JCX-22-99--Description Of Modification To Chairman's Mark Of
    Proposals Relating To Education Incentives. May 19, 1999
        JCX-23-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Modified Chairman's Mark
    Of Education Tax Incentives In An Original Bill, The ``Affordable
    Education Act Of 1999''. May 19, 1999
        JCX-24-99--Report Of The Joint Committee On Taxation Relating To
    The Internal Revenue Service As Required By The IRS Reform And
    Restructuring Act Of 1998. Prepared for the House Committees on Ways
    and Means, Appropriations, and Government Reform and the Senate
    Committees on Finance, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs For a
    Joint Review Scheduled on May 25, 1999. May 20, 1999
        JCX-25-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions In Chairman's
    Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 434, The ``African
    Growth And Opportunity Act''. Scheduled for Markup by the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on June 10, 1999. June 9, 1999
        JCX-26-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Provisions In A Chairman's
    Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 434, The ``African
    Growth And Opportunity Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
    Ways And Means On June 10, 1999. June 9, 1999
        JCX-27-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions In Chairman's
    Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 984, The ``Caribbean
    And Central America Relief And Economic Stabilization Act''. Scheduled
    for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 10, 1999.
    June 9, 1999
        JCX-28-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Provisions In A Chairman's
    Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 984, The ``Caribbean
    And Central America Relief And Economic Stabilization Act''. Scheduled
    For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On June 10, 1999. June 9,
    1999
        JCX-29-99--Present Law And Background On Federal Tax Provisions
    Relating To Retirement Savings Incentives, Health And Long-Term Care,
    And Estate And Gift Taxes. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    House Committee on Ways and Means on June 16, 1999. June 15, 1999
        JCX-30-99--Overview Of Present-Law Rules Relating To International
    Taxation And Description Of H.R. 2018, The International Tax
    Simplification For American Competitiveness Act Of 1999. Scheduled for
    a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-31-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions Included In The United
    States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. Scheduled for Markup by
    the Senate Committee on Finance on June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-32-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``United States-
    Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The
    Committee On Finance On June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-33-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions Included In The
    African Growth And Opportunity Act. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
    Committee on Finance on June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-34-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``African Growth And
    Opportunity Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On
    June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-35-99--Description Of Revenue Provisions Included In The Trade
    Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act. Scheduled for Markup by the
    Senate Committee on Finance on June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-36-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Trade Adjustment
    Assistance Reauthorization Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee
    On Finance On June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-37-99--Description Of Revenue Provision Included In The
    Generalized System Of Preferences Extension Act. Scheduled for Markup
    by the Senate Committee on Finance on June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-38-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Generalized System Of
    Preferences Extension Act.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
    Finance On June 22, 1999. June 18, 1999
        JCX-39-99--Present Law And Background Relating To The Marriage Tax
    Penalty, Education Tax Incentives, And Alternative Minimum Tax, And
    Expiring Tax Provisions. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    House Committee on Ways and Means on June 23, 1999. June 22, 1999
        JCX-40-99--Description And Analysis Of Present-Law Rules Relating
    To International Taxation. Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on June 30, 1999. June 28, 1999
        JCX-41-99--Description Of Present Law And Proposals Relating To The
    Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and means on
    July 1, 1999. June 29, 1999
        JCX-42-99--Description Of The Financial Freedom Act Of 1999.
    Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on July
    13, 1999. July 12, 1999
        JCX-43-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Financial Freedom Act
    Of 1999.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means
    Beginning On July 13, 1999. July 12, 1999
        JCX-44-99--Distributional Effects Of The Financial Freedom Act Of
    1999. July 13, 1999
        JCX-45-99--Description Of Modifications To The ``Financial Freedom
    Act Of 1999'' (H.R.2488) Contained In The Chairman's Amendment In The
    Nature Of A Substitute. July 14, 1999
        JCX-46-99--Description Of The Taxpayer Refund Act Of 1999.
    Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on July 20,
    1999. July 16, 1999
        JCX-47-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Refund Act
    Of 1999.'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance Beginning
    On July 20, 1999. July 16, 1999
        JCX-48-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Financial Freedom Act
    Of 1999,'' As Reported By The Committee On Ways And Means. July 16,
    1999
        JCX-49-99--Description Of Proposed Modifications To H.R. 2488, As
    Reported By The House Committee On Ways And Means On July 16, 1999,
    Including Statutory Language. July 21, 1999
        JCX-50-99--Distributional Effects Of The Taxpayer Refund Act Of
    1999. July 20, 1999
        JCX-51-99--Description Of Proposed Modifications To The Provisions
    Of The Taxpayer Refund Act Of 1999. July 21, 1999
        JCX-52-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Modification
    To The ``Taxpayer Refund Act Of 1999.'' Scheduled For Markup By The
    Committee On Finance. July 21, 1999
        JCX-53-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 2488, The ``Financial
    Freedom Act Of 1999,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives. July
    22, 1999
        JCX-54-99--Distributional Effects Of H.R. 2488, The ``Financial
    Freedom Act Of 1999,'' As Passed By The House Of Representatives. July
    22, 1999
        JCX-55-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Refund Act Of
    1999,'' As Approved By The Committee On Finance On July 21, 1999. July
    23, 1999
        JCX-56-99--Summary Of The Revenue Provisions Contained In S. 1429,
    The Taxpayer Refund Act Of 1999, As Reported By The Senate Committee On
    Finance On July 23, 1999. July 27, 1999
        JCX-57-99--Comparison Of Provisions In H.R. 2488, As Passed By The
    House And The Senate. August 2, 1999
        JCX-58-99--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R.
    2488, As Passed By The House And The Senate. August 2, 1999
        JCX-59-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 2488, As Passed By The
    Senate On July 30, 1999. August 2, 1999
        JCX-60-99--Overview Of Conference Agreement For H.R. 2488, The
    ``Taxpayer Refund And Relief Act Of 1999''. August 4, 1999
        JCX-61-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For
    H.R. 2488. August 4, 1999
        JCX-62-99--Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For
    H.R. 2488. August 5, 1999
        JCX-63-99--Summary Of The Revenue Provisions Of The Conference
    Agreement On H.R. 2488, The ``Taxpayer Refund And Relief Act Of 1999''.
    August 6, 1999
        JCX-64-99--Description Of Expiring Tax Provisions In H.R. 2923.
    Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
    September 24, 1999. September 23, 1999
        JCX-65-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Expiring Provisions.
    Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On September
    24, 1999. September 23, 1999
        JCX-66-99--Description Of Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A
    Substitute To H.R. 2923. September 24, 1999
        JCX-67-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
    The Nature Of A Substitute Relating To Expiring And Time-Sensitive
    Provisions For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On September
    24, 1999. September 24, 1999
        JCX-68-99--Description Of Selected Federal Tax Provisions That
    Impact Land Use, Conservation, And Preservation. Scheduled for a
    Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on
    Ways and Means on September 30, 1999. September 28, 1999
        JCX-69-99--Description Of Chairman's Mark Relating To Expiring Tax
    Provisions. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on
    October 8, 1999. October 5, 1999
        JCX-70-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Mark Relating
    To Expiring Tax Provisions. Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
    Finance On October 8, 1999. October 6, 1999
        JCX-71-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Title I. Of H.R. 2990, The
    ``Quality Care For The Uninsured Act Of 1999,'' As Passed By The House
    Of Representatives On October 6, 1999. October 7, 1999
        JCX-72-99--Federal Tax Issues Relating To Restructuring Of The
    Electric Power Industry. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction of the Senate
    Committee on Finance on October 19, 1999. October 15, 1999
        JCX-73-99--Description Of Modified Chairman's Mark Relating To
    Expiring Tax Provisions. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee
    on Finance on October 20, 1999. October 19, 1999
        JCX-74-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Modified Chairman's Mark
    Relating To Expiring Tax Provisions. Scheduled For Markup By The
    Committee On Finance On October 20, 1999. October 19, 1999
        JCX-75-99--Summary Of Tax Provisions Contained In The Wage And
    Employment Growth Act Of 1999 (H.R. 3081). Scheduled for Markup by the
    House Committee on Ways and Means on October 21, 1999. October 19, 1999
        JCX-76-99--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
    Taxation Before The Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hearing On
    Tax Treaties And Protocols With Eight Countries. October 25, 1999
        JCX-77-99--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions In H.R. 2990 As Passed
    By The House And The Senate. November 2, 1999
        JCX-78-99--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The
    Revenue Provisions Contained In H.R. 2990, As Passed By The House And
    The Senate. November 2, 1999
        JCX-79-99--Comparison Of Joint Committee Staff And Treasury
    Recommendations Relating To Penalty And Interest Provisions Of The
    Internal Revenue Code. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on
    November 9, 1999. November 5, 1999
        JCX-80-99--Description Of Chairman Archer's Amendment To The
    Revenue Provisions Of The Wage And Employment Growth Act Of 1999 (H.R.
    3081). Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and
    Means on November 9, 1999. November 9, 1999
        JCX-81-99--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Chairman Archer's Amendment
    To H.R. 3081, The ``Wage And Employment Growth Act Of 1999.'' Scheduled
    For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On November 9, 1999.
    November 9, 1999
        JCX-82-99--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
    Taxation Before The Committee On Ways And Means. November 10, 1999
        JCX-83-99--Appendix I To JCX-82-99: NIPA And Federal Income Tax
    Receipts Data. November 10, 1999
        JCX-84-99--Appendix II To JCX-82-99: Description And Analysis Of
    Present-Law Tax Rules And Recent Proposals Relating To Corporate Tax
    Shelters. November 10, 1999
        JCX-85-99--Summary Of Conference Agreement On H.R. 1180 Relating To
    Expiring Tax Provisions And Other Revenue Provisions. November 17, 1999
        JCX-86-99--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
    Included In The Conference Agreement For H.R. 1180. November 18, 1999

    Attachment C.--Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimate requests

            Calendar year                                    No. of requests

    1985..............................................................   348
    1986..............................................................   474
    1987..............................................................   420
    1988..............................................................   900
    1989.............................................................. 1,290
    1990.............................................................. 1,286
    1991.............................................................. 1,461
    1992.............................................................. 2,350
    1993.............................................................. 2,380
    1994.............................................................. 1,259
    1995.............................................................. 2,278
    1996.............................................................. 1,792
    1997.............................................................. 2,079
    1998.............................................................. 2,729
    1999.............................................................. 4,150

                 ATTACHMENT D.--106TH CONGRESS REQUEST DATA \1\
                            (As of January 10, 2000)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Requests   Requests   Percent
                   Requestors                 Received    Closed     Closed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ways and Means Committee:
        Republicans........................        909        698       76.8
        Democrats..........................        365        243       66.6
    Senate Finance Committee:
        Republicans........................        676        523       77.4
        Democrats..........................        954        818       85.7
    Non-Ways and Means Committee:
        Republicans........................        261        210       80.5
        Democrats/Independent..............        107         61       57.0
    Non-Senate Finance Committee:
        Republicans........................        481        383       79.6
        Democrats..........................        419        306       73.0
    Others.................................         62         55       88.7
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................      4,234      3,297       77.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.

                           Attachment E.--Memorandum
                                                      December 7, 1999.
    To: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
    From: Senior Refund Counsel
    Subject: Refund Section--Operations Report October 1, 1998 through
        September 30, 1999

        This is a report on the more significant developments in this
    Office during this period.

                                    SUMMARY

        Volume.--Refund Cases--577 reports were received during this
    period. The total dollar amount of refunds was $5,810,543,053.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Reports received                          1995      1996      1997    1998 \1\    1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examination Division..........................................       425       375       457       334       449
    Appeals Division..............................................       132       101       124        92       108
    Department of Justice.........................................        20        25        18        12        15
    Chief Counsel.................................................         2         5         3         1         5
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................................       579       506       602       439       577
                                                                   =================================================
    Concerns \2\..................................................        79       104        88        58        65
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 1998 was based on a short nine-month period, i.e., January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998.
    \2\ Includes 12 post review deficiency cases for 1995, 16 for 1996, 4 for 1997, 3 for 1998 and 4 for 1999.

        Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
    on an annual basis. During this reporting period, we received 64 of
    these cases and wrote 4 concerns.
        Other Action.--(1) We transmitted for consideration of future
    legislative action five issues that arose in various cases.
        (2) We transmitted memoranda suggesting the Service take a position
    on a legal issue for future guidance.
        Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
    foregoing.
        Errors identified by us in fiscal year 1999 and prior years, and
    settled in fiscal year 1999 produced a net reduction in refunds of
    $18.3 million. The average annual reduction for the last 9 years is
    $11.9 million. Such corrections also reduced ATNOLCF's $15.7 million,
    AMFTC's $11.9 million, and minimum tax credits $300,000.
        We hope that we are satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned
    portion of the Committee's mission and meeting your expectations. We
    look forward to a productive, challenging year.

                             EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405
                                    [From October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   No. of               Cumulative
                       Month                       cases    Cumulative    monthly   Dollar receipts     Cumulative
                                                  received     total      average                    dollar receipts
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    October....................................         44          44          44     $434,675,688     $434,675,688
    November...................................         42          86          43      179,703,354      614,379,042
    December...................................         24         110          37      163,924,794      778,303,836
    January....................................         60         170          43      514,653,189    1,292,957,025
    February...................................         49         219          44      423,046,072    1,716,003,097
    March......................................         48         267          45      671,919,531    2,387,922,628
    April......................................         55         322          46      411,354,430    2,799,277,058
    May........................................         49         371          46      616,195,829    3,415,472,887
    June.......................................         51         422          47      471,338,950    3,886,811,837
    July.......................................         42         464          46      817,094,229    4,703,906,066
    August.....................................         62         526          48      667,827,936    5,371,734,002
    September..................................         51         577          48      438,809,051    5,810,543,053
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE--FISCAL YEAR 1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Amount    Percent                                  Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                TYPES OF TAXPAYERS                                        SOURCE OF REPORTS
    Individuals..............................        23      3.99   Examination.................       449     77.82
    Estates..................................        13      2.25   Appeals.....................       108     18.72
    Trusts...................................         1      0.18   Justice.....................        15      2.60
    Corporations.............................       540     93.58   Tax Court...................         5      0.86
                                              ---------------------                              -------------------
          Total..............................       577    100.00         Total.................       577    100.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND APPEALS
                                    [From October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Month                               Examination  Cumulative   Appeals   Cumulative
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    October.........................................................          33           33         10          10
    November........................................................          31           64         10          20
    December........................................................          19           83          4          24
    January.........................................................          44          127         14          38
    February........................................................          41          168          6          44
    March...........................................................          41          209          7          51
    April...........................................................          47          256          8          59
    May.............................................................          37          293         11          70
    June............................................................          41          334         10          80
    July............................................................          30          364          7          87
    August..........................................................          47          411         10          97
    September.......................................................          38          449         11         108
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            EXHIBIT IV.--FISCAL YEAR 1999 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS FROM IRS \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total No. of
                                                                       Examinations       Appeals        concerns
                                                                                                          issued
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of concerns issued.......................................              46              15              61
    Percent of total concerns issued................................              75              25             100
    Total reports received..........................................             449             108             557
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Number of Concerns does not include 4 on deficiency cases.

     Attachment F.--Background Information Relating to the Joint Committee
                                  on Taxation

                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

        The Joint Committee on Taxation (``JCT'') was established under the
    Revenue Act of 1926 and is one of the oldest joint committees of the
    Congress. It is composed of five Members of the House Committee on Ways
    & Means and five Members of the Senate Committee on Finance. The
    Chairman and Vice Chairman of the JCT are elected by the JCT members;
    these positions generally alternate each year between the Chairmen of
    the Ways & Means and Finance Committees.

           MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION--106TH CONGRESS

          House
    Bill Archer, Texas
    Philip M. Crane, Illinois
    William M. Thomas, California
    Charles B. Rangel, New York
    Fortney Pete Stark, California

          Senate
    William V. Roth, Jr., Delaware
    Charles Grassley, Iowa
    Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York
    Max Baucus, Montana

                                   JCT STAFF

        The JCT has a nonpartisan professional staff that includes lawyers,
    certified public accountants, economists, and computer specialists. The
    JCT staff lawyers and accountants have substantial tax experience,
    including private practice experience with law and accounting firms and
    experience with the Internal Revenue Service. The staff economists have
    advanced degrees and substantial experience with computer modeling and
    quantitative methods of analysis relating to revenue estimation.
        The JCT staff is available to any Member of Congress who would like
    assistance in formulating revenue proposals and examining the possible
    economic, legal, administrative, and revenue implications of such
    proposals.

                                TAX LEGISLATION

        The JCT staff is closely involved in every aspect of the tax
    legislative process. Among other things, the JCT staff (1) prepares
    hearing pamphlets, committee reports, and conference reports
    (statements of managers), (2) assists the House and Senate Legislative
    Counsel in the drafting of statutory language, (3) assists Members of
    Congress with the development of tax proposals, (4) assists Members of
    Congress in addressing constituent issues and problems, (5) analyzes
    prepares revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the
    Congress, and (6) undertakes investigations and studies of various
    aspects of the Federal tax system.
        In recent years, the JCT staff has prepared hearing pamphlets on
    fundamental tax reform, the marriage penalty, estate and gift taxes,
    the individual alternative minimum tax, effective marginal income tax
    rates, the taxation of capital gains, tax incentives for savings, tax
    provisions relating to health care, tax complexity for small business,
    and the restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service.

                                  OTHER DUTIES

        The JCT is statutorily required to (1) investigate the operation
    and effects of Federal taxes and the administration of such taxes, (2)
    investigate methods to simplify such taxes, (3) report the results of
    such investigations and make recommendations, and (4) review proposed
    income tax refunds in excess of $1 million.
        From time to time, the JCT staff is asked to undertake special
    studies or investigations. For example, in the early 1970's, the JCT
    staff was asked to review President Nixon's tax returns. More recently,
    the JCT staff was asked to investigate allegations of bias in the IRS
    handling of exempt organization matters.
        The JCT staff also prepares special reports that are required by
    law or requested by a Member. The JCT staff is required to prepare a
    complexity analysis of provisions contained in revenue legislation that
    are of widespread applicability to individuals and small business. The
    JCT staff conducted studies during 1999 of (1) the interest and penalty
    provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) provisions relating to
    taxpayer confidentiality. The JCT staff is also required to conduct a
    study of the complexity of the present-law Federal tax system and to
    prepare materials in connection with annual joint hearings relating to
    IRS operations for calendar years 1999-2003.
        Each year the JCT staff prepares and publishes a list of tax
    expenditures, as required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
    Control Act of 1974 (the ``Budget Act''). Tax expenditures are
    ``revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws
    which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross
    income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax,
    or a deferral of tax liability.'' The most recent JCT tax expenditure
    report was published in December 1999.

                               REVENUE ESTIMATES

        Under the Budget Act, the JCT staff is the official scorekeeper of
    Congress for the budgetary implications (``revenue effects'') of any
    proposed revenue legislation.
        Any Member of Congress may request a revenue estimate for a tax
    proposal. A written request signed by the requesting Member should be
    sent to the Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation, 1015 Longworth
    House Office Building. The request should describe in detail the
    proposal to be estimated (including the effective date) and should
    include the name of a contact person in case there are questions about
    the proposal. Statutory language should be included if available.
        Work on revenue estimates generally is done on a first-in first-out
    basis, with some exceptions made for previously estimated proposals.
    Some responses take longer than others because of difficulties in
    obtaining data and developing the necessary models. When revenue
    legislation is pending in the House or the Senate, requests relating to
    such pending legislation receive higher priority.
        When revenue estimates are completed, the requesting Member
    receives a written response from the JCT Chief of Staff. The response
    contains a brief summary of the proposal and the revenue estimate for
    the proposal. The JCT staff does not provide verbal (telephone)
    responses to revenue requests.

                             ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

        The starting point for many revenue estimates is the tax return
    data supplied to the JCT staff by the Internal Revenue Service
    (``IRS''). These confidential data include statistically valid samples
    of individual and corporate tax returns. The JCT individual income tax
    model is based on a sample of approximately 150,000 individual tax
    returns chosen to reflect accurately all major features of the
    individual income tax. The data are statistically adjusted to match
    current baseline forecasts of all relevant economic and demographic
    variables for the current budget period. If a revenue estimate cannot
    be completed with tax return information, data are obtained from other
    sources such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of
    Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human
    Services, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development, the Social Security Administration, and the Federal
    Reserve Board.
        The JCT staff strives to incorporate in its work the most recent
    advances in computer technology as well as advances in econometric and
    statistical methods of analysis. The JCT staff conducts meetings at
    least once each year of its Advisory Board of expert economists to
    review general issues relating to the JCT's revenue estimating
    methodology. All of the JCT econometric and microsimulation models are
    reviewed and recalibrated on an annual basis. In addition, a major
    ongoing project of the JCT staff involves researching the feasibility
    of and developing the capability to incorporate macroeconomic feedback
    in its future analysis of major Federal tax proposals.
        The JCT staff will provide additional information regarding the
    data and methodology used to produce a revenue estimate upon request.
    Members who would like this information should contact the JCT Chief of
    Staff.

                            DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSES

        The JCT staff also prepares estimates of the distributional effects
    of some tax proposals on a year-by-year basis. These distributional
    analyses show the effects of tax provisions on the tax liabilities of
    taxpayers in different income classes.
        Distributional analyses generally are much more difficult to
    prepare than revenue estimates because (1) it is often possible to
    measure the magnitude of the changes in total taxes paid without
    knowing how these tax changes are allocated among income groups, (2)
    data on the income levels of the affected taxpayers are not always
    available, and (3) in some cases, no reliable method is available to
    allocate to individuals the taxes paid by businesses. The JCT staff
    will not provide distributional analyses for tax proposals in cases in
    which the effects of a proposal on different income groups cannot be
    measured with reasonable accuracy.

                          CONFIDENTIALITY OF REQUESTS

        Requests made by Members of Congress to the JCT staff for revenue
    estimates, distributional analyses, or for other assistance are treated
    as confidential. Generally, responses to such requests are released
    only to the Member making the request and the JCT response remains
    confidential unless the Member decides to make the information public.
    This confidential treatment of Member proposals extends to the process
    of developing tax legislation, which may involve substantial
    consultation between a Member (and his or her staff) and the JCT staff.
    Similarly, any information provided to the JCT staff to help in the
    formulation of a revenue estimate is treated as confidential and is not
    released outside the JCT staff.
        Any Member of Congress may request a revenue estimate of tax
    legislation which has been introduced or that otherwise has entered the
    public domain. When a revenue estimate has been included in a publicly
    available document (e.g., a revenue table summarizing a markup proposal
    or the results of a markup), the estimate is made available to anyone
    upon request.

                                JCT PUBLICATIONS

        The JCT website (www.house.gov/jct) contains a listing of all JCT
    publications issued since 1981. Copies may be obtained from the JCT
    documents room (1620 Longworth HOB), by calling (202) 225-2647, or by
    sending an e-mail request to jctpublications@mail.house.gov.
    Publications issued in 1998 are available on the website for viewing or
    downloading. Publications issued in 1999 generally will be available on
    the website within one or two days of publication.

                                  JCT OFFICES

        The JCT maintains offices on both the House and Senate sides of the
    Capitol. The main JCT offices are located at:
        1015 Longworth House Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20515
        Phone: 202-225-3621
        Fax: 202-225-0832

        204 Dirksen Senate Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20510
        Phone: 202-224-5561

                           FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM REPORT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Those are encouraging
    numbers indeed and they do demonstrate the high level of
    professionalism that you have established.
        When do you expect the report on the state of the Federal
    tax system and tax simplification recommendations to be
    published?
        Ms. Paull. January of 2001.
        Senator Bennett. January of 2001, okay.
        Ms. Paull. It would be our hope that we would put it out
    before the Appropriations Committees begin their work again
    next year, so that they can consider whether or not the study
    is worthwhile to be funded again for the next Congress.
        Senator Bennett. With your other hat on as chairman of the
    Finance Committee, I would think you would want this report so
    that you could make the appropriate legislative changes.
        Senator Roth. That is the reason for the original request.
    That is correct.
        Senator Bennett. As chairman of the Finance Committee, are
    you satisfied with the timing of the report from the Joint
    Committee?
        Senator Roth. Yes, there has been very excellent
    cooperation.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Stevens, do you have any
    questions?
        Senator Stevens. Will this report be repeated every year,
    these two reports?
        Ms. Paull. The two reports that we did will not be repeated
    again.
        Senator Stevens. I mean the tax system and the
    simplification recommendations.
        Ms. Paull. Well, what was contemplated by the IRS
    restructuring bill was to have it done once a Congress. So
    while it really will not get out before the end of this
    Congress, it would really be for this Congress. Then, subject
    to the Appropriations Committees' review, you can decide
    whether or not you wanted to fund it for another Congress.
        But our work would be once a Congress. The IRS has been
    asked to do it once a year, and their first study is due next
    month.
        Senator Roth. I think, as Lindy was pointing out, we will
    have an opportunity to examine all this prior to the next
    year's appropriation.
        Senator Stevens. We will not examine this one, yours. We
    will get it next January?
        Senator Roth. Yes.
        Ms. Paull. Right, as early as we can. It will be a
    comprehensive review of the entire tax code.
        Senator Stevens. We will have the IRS study before
    appropriations for 2001, but we will have yours in time for
    2002, is that right?
        Ms. Paull. That is correct.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, we intend to have 2001's
    appropriations wrapped up by Memorial Day.
        Senator Stevens. Assuming we have a budget, that might be
    true.
        Senator Bennett. Assuming we have a budget.
        I have no further questions, but we are very grateful to
    you for taking the time to come in and be part of the hearing
    process. I think it is important that we establish that
    relationship so that the committee stays informed and involved
    with what we are doing.
        Senator Roth. Thank you for your interest, and we
    appreciate the opportunity to appear.
        Ms. Paull. Thank you for your support.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DiMARIO, THE PUBLIC PRINTER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
            WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
            CHARLES COOK, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING MANAGEMENT OFFICER
        Senator Bennett. Our next witness is the Public Printer,
    Mr. Michael DiMario. Mr. DiMario, if you would introduce
    whoever you bring with you.
        Mr. DiMario. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
    members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be here to present
    the appropriations requirement for the Government Printing
    Office for fiscal year 2001. With me are the Superintendent of
    Documents, Francis Buckley, and GPO's Budget Officer, William
    Guy. Also seated behind me is Mr. Charles Cook, who is our
    Congressional Printing Management Officer.
        In the interest of time, I will very briefly summarize my
    prepared statement, which I have submitted for the record.
        Senator Bennett. It shall be printed in the record.

                           Public Printer's statement

        Mr. DiMario. Thank you. For fiscal year 2001 we are
    requesting a total of $121.3 million. This includes $80.8
    million for the Congressional printing and binding
    appropriation and $34.5 million for the salaries and expenses
    appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. It also
    includes $6 million for GPO's revolving fund for an
    extraordinary expense associated with the replacement of our
    air conditioning system.
        We are requesting a statutory ceiling on our FTE's of
    3,285. We have reduced employment levels substantially over the
    past decade. This FTE level, which is a reduction from our
    current ceiling of 3,313, will allow us to hire essential
    positions.
        As my statement notes, we are also requesting two
    legislative changes to Title 44 U.S.C. as part of our
    appropriations submission.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, I realize time is short this morning and so
    this concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions you have.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Michael F. DiMario

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
    here to present the appropriations request of the Government Printing
    Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2001.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting a total of $121,251,000.
    The request includes $80,800,000 for the annual Congressional Printing
    and Binding Appropriation and $34,451,000 for the annual Salaries and
    Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. It also
    includes $6,000,000 for GPO's revolving fund, to remain available until
    expended, for extraordinary expenses associated with the replacement of
    our air-conditioning system.
        The Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation is critical to
    the maintenance and operation of our in-plant capacity, which is
    structured to serve Congress' information product needs. This
    appropriation covers the costs of congressional printing such as the
    Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearings, documents, and other
    products. Each year, a substantial volume of this work is
    requisitioned. In fiscal year 1999, more than 800 million copy pages of
    congressional products were produced at an average cost of about 7.4
    cents per page, inclusive of all prepress work, printing, binding, and
    delivery. This appropriation also covers database preparation work on
    congressional publications disseminated online via GPO Access, our
    Internet information service.
        The majority of the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and
    Expenses Appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library Program
    (FDLP). While some of the funding for this program is for salaries and
    benefits, most is for printing and disseminating publications
    (including publications in CD-ROM and online formats) to depository
    libraries. This appropriation also covers other statutory distribution
    responsibilities, such as cataloging and indexing and international
    exchange distribution of U.S. Government publications, and provides the
    majority of funding for the operation of GPO Access. GPO's other major
    distribution functions, the sales program and agency distribution
    services, are funded by revenues earned and receive no appropriated
    funds.

                CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING APPROPRIATION

        The items covered by our request of $80,800,000 for the
    Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation are as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                   Estimated
            Category                                             Requirement

    Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index, and
        the bound Record).............................................  17.8
    Committee hearings................................................  16.9
    Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads,
        envelopes, blank paper, and other products)...................  15.8
    Bills, resolutions, amendments....................................  10.3
    Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional Directory,
        the U.S. Code, and serial sets)...............................   6.8
    Committee Reports.................................................   4.1
    Details to Congress...............................................   2.3
    Document..........................................................   2.2
    Committee Prints..................................................   1.8
    Business and Committee Calendars..................................   1.8
    Document Envelopes and Franks.....................................   1.0
                                                                      ______
          Total...................................................      80.8

        Part of the increase in our request over the current year is due to
    changes in product prices. Price increases are anticipated to increase
    our funding requirements by $2,283,000 over the current year base, due
    to the increased costs of employee compensation and benefits (based on
    existing wage contracts), utilities, maintenance, materials, and
    supplies.
        The majority of the increase in our request is due to projected
    workload, or volume, increases. An increase of $5,220,000 over the
    current year base is required due to anticipated workload increases,
    based on historical trend data. Most of this increase, or $2,880,000,
    is projected for miscellaneous publications due primarily to the
    reprinting of the U.S. Code, which is done every six years under the
    provisions of Title 1, U.S.C., section 202. In addition, there is an
    increase of $1,045,000 in miscellaneous printing and binding to provide
    for the restoration of projected workload to a level requisite to meet
    historical demands. Based on historical data, we also project increased
    workloads for bills, resolutions, and amendments, hearings, committee
    reports, documents, details to Congress, and committee prints. A
    partially offsetting workload reduction is projected for business and
    committee calendars. While these estimates are based on historical
    factors and represent our best estimates as to the projected workload
    for the first session of the 107th Congress, actual workload may vary.

                      SALARIES AND EXPENSES APPROPRIATION

        The programs covered by our request of $34,451,000 for the Salaries
    and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents are as
    follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                   Estimated
            Program                                             Requirements

    Federal Depository Library Program................................  29.8
    Cataloging and Indexing Program...................................   3.3
    International Exchange Program....................................    .9
    By-Law Distribution Program.......................................    .5
                                                                      ______
          Total...................................................      34.5

        Mandatory pay increases and price level changes represent $926,000
    of the total requested increase. Mandatory pay increases account for
    $403,000 of this amount. We are requesting $523,000 to cover price
    level changes calculated at the assumed rate of inflation for the year,
    or 2.1 percent.
        A total of $3,409,000 over the current year base is requested for
    workload changes, primarily for expenditures associated with the FDLP.
    Of this amount, $1,624,000 is requested under miscellaneous services to
    fund expenses primarily associated with GPO Access operating and
    hardware costs, resulting from the continuing addition of new products
    and capacity to GPO Access as well as ensuring permanent public access
    to the FDLP electronic collection. A total of $1,029,000 is requested
    under depository and international exchange printing to fund increases
    in depository printing expenses, as the result of the reprinting and
    distribution of the U.S. Code. An increase of $582,000 is requested
    under personnel compensation and benefits to fund 5 additional
    depository library program positions (3 for GPO Access support,
    development, and new product outreach; 1 for library inspections; and 1
    for FDLP electronic collection development), and 4 additional
    catalogers in the cataloging and indexing program. The balance of the
    requested workload increase, or $214,000 less anticipated offsetting
    reductions of $40,000 in travel and transportation costs, is for
    materials and supplies, primarily to support the continuing expansion
    of GPO Access.
        We are also requesting an increase of $244,000 in depreciation due
    to an increase in asset acquisitions, again primarily in support of GPO
    Access.
        Transition to More Electronic Dissemination.--The transition to a
    more electronic FDLP is continuing, as projected in the Study to
    Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
    Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (June 1996), as required
    by Congress in the Legislative Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
    In fiscal year 1999, 46 percent of the new titles made available were
    disseminated electronically. So far in fiscal year 2000, 67 percent of
    the new titles available to the public through the FDLP have been
    online. Because of electronic information dissemination, the FDLP now
    delivers more products than ever before. In fiscal year 1999, 70,340
    new titles were disseminated through the FDLP. That was the second
    highest amount ever, and there is no end in sight to the potential
    program growth of electronic titles.
        Status Report on GPO Access.--We recently submitted the second
    Biennial Report to Congress on the Status of GPO Access, as required by
    section 4103 of Title 44, U.S.C. As the report notes, GPO Access now
    serves as one of the leading online sources of free, official
    Government information for the public. Its resources, covering all
    three branches of the Federal Government, provide public access to more
    than 104,000 titles on GPO servers and an additional 62,000 titles on
    Federal agency web sites. The public currently uses GPO Access to
    retrieve approximately 21 million Federal documents each month, and
    user feedback is highly positive. Moreover, the cost to operate this
    system has been significantly less than was originally projected.
    Overall, GPO Access has been a highly successful undertaking, and
    promises to continue serving as one of the public's primary sources for
    electronic access to Government information.

                                 REVOLVING FUND

        Fiscal Year 1999 Performance.--After two consecutive years of year-
    end net income, GPO completed fiscal year 1999 with an under-recovery
    of $5 million on $765 million in total revenues, a margin of
    approximately six-tenths of one percent. The under-recovery was
    financed by retained earnings and did not place GPO in an anti-
    deficiency position or require additional appropriations.
        The primary cause of the under-recovery was in our sales program,
    which is funded entirely by revenues earned on sales of publications.
    The free availability of publications on GPO Access and other
    Government web sites has contributed to reduced sales of printed
    products, although other factors, including reduced agency publishing
    and competition from other sales organizations, both public and
    private, are also contributory factors. We also experienced an under-
    recovery in our printing procurement program. We have made price
    adjustments in both programs to increase cost recovery in the future,
    and we are reviewing additional options to restore the sales program to
    a sound financial basis. During the year, an audit of GPO's financial
    reports and systems for fiscal year 1998 was conducted by KPMG Peat
    Marwick, Inc., under contract with the General Accounting Office. The
    audit resulted in a clean opinion for GPO.
        Air Conditioning System.--Our appropriations submission includes a
    request for $6,000,000 for the revolving fund, to be available until
    expended, to cover the cost of necessary improvements to GPO's air
    conditioning system, which is in critical need of replacement. Without
    a direct appropriation, financing this extraordinary capital expense
    through the revolving fund will require us to reimburse the fund
    through rate adjustments. As this expense is not directly related to
    the provision of printing and information product services, its impact
    on our rate structure will be detrimental to our ability to carry out
    our mission to provide cost-effective and economical products and
    services. The installation of our air conditioning system in the early
    1970's was funded by direct appropriations to the revolving fund, and
    we request that this extraordinary cost be funded similarly. I note
    that the Senate included funding for this system last year and hope you
    do again for fiscal year 2001.
        FTE Level.--We are requesting a statutory ceiling on employment of
    full-time equivalents (FTE's) of 3,285. This FTE level will allow us to
    hire for essential positions. GPO is now at its lowest employment point
    in the past century, principally due to our use of technology.
        For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that with GPO's
    utilization of technology improvements, we have made major
    contributions to the reduction in total legislative branch employment
    since fiscal year 1990. The Statistical Abstract of the United States
    1999 reports that total legislative branch employment between fiscal
    year 1990 and fiscal year 1998 fell from 37,495 to 30,474, a decline of
    7,021, or about 19 percent (table no. 566, p. 363). In the same period,
    total GPO employment declined from 5,049 to 3,435, a reduction of
    1,614, or 32 percent. The reduction in GPO employment represented 23
    percent of the total reduction in legislative branch employment during
    the fiscal year 1990-98 period, yet as of September 30, 1998, total GPO
    employment of 3,435 represented slightly more than 11 percent of
    overall legislative branch employment.
        Y2K Preparedness.--I am pleased to report that, under the
    leadership of Chairman Bennett, we managed the transition to the Year
    2000 successfully, with no disruptions to the essential systems
    supporting Congress' information products. We worked with the Senate
    and the House of Representatives, as well as the GAO oversight team, to
    prepare for the transition, and staffed these systems on New Years Eve
    to monitor the transition.
        GPO had 40 systems designated as mission-critical. Following New
    Years, we experienced minor roll-over anomalies in 3 of these systems,
    2 of which support the Superintendent of Documents sales of
    publications program and one which supports the Federal Depository
    Library Program. However, each of these was repaired in a matter of
    hours with no adverse effect on GPO's customers or operations. An
    additional system, the Superintendent of Documents refund check
    processing system, which was not designated as mission-critical,
    experienced roll-over anomalies as a result of contractor failure to
    deliver a Y2K-compliant version before New Years. It subsequently
    underwent Y2K remediation in-house and is operational. These issues
    were reported to the GAO.

                               ADDITIONAL ISSUES

        Legislative Changes.--We are requesting two legislative changes to
    Title 44, U.S.C., as part of our appropriations submission.
        We are requesting a change to section 303 of Title 44, regarding
    the pay of the Public Printer and the Deputy Public Printer, to
    maintain pay parity with other comparable legislative branch officials
    as well as appropriate comparability with senior congressional staff.
    We have provided information on this matter to our legislative
    oversight committees, although I note that changes in the pay levels
    for the Public Printer and Deputy Public Printer typically have been
    provided through the appropriations process, as they last were in the
    early 1990's.
        We are also requesting a change in section 1708 of Title 44,
    regarding the pricing of sales publications, to provide us with greater
    flexibility in pricing documents for sale, including the setting of
    sales discounts at rates comparable to the private sector in order to
    attract greater commercial interest in the resale of Government
    publications. We are in the process of providing information on this
    change to our legislative oversight committees and will provide the
    same information to this Subcommittee.
        Strategic Plan.--At the request of the Chairman of the Joint
    Committee on Printing, we have prepared a strategic plan for GPO. It
    has been transmitted to the Joint Committee as well as to Members of
    this Subcommittee and the House Subcommittee on Legislative
    Appropriations, and to GPO's legislative oversight committees, the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on
    House Administration.
        The strategic plan charts our course for providing information
    reproduction and dissemination services to the Government and the
    public over the next five years, from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year
    2005. Although GPO is not covered by the Government Performance and
    Results Act, our plan has been designed, to the maximum extent
    possible, consistent with the requirements for strategic plans
    contained in that Act and in Office of Management and Budget Circular
    No. A-11, section 210, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans.
    We consulted with staff of the Joint Committee on Printing in the
    development of the plan.
        From our perspective, GPO currently plays--and will continue to
    fulfill--the Government's leading role in the provision of information
    products and services. The 1998 management audit by Booz-Allen &
    Hamilton, Inc., found strong support in Congress for GPO's in-house
    production operations for congressional printing, ``universal support''
    among executive branch agencies for GPO's printing procurement program,
    and strong support for the FDLP. In addition, the audit recommended
    that GPO make an increasing amount of government information available
    electronically, free of charge, over the Internet.
        Our strategic plan is based on our assessment of the future of the
    Federal information product environment, an environment once dominated
    by traditional printing and information reproduction processes but now
    changing rapidly and forever from the impact of e-information
    technologies, especially the Internet. GPO is already a major player in
    this environment with GPO Access and related e-information
    capabilities. We will continue to fulfill a leadership role in the
    Government in the provision of innovative, efficient, and effective e-
    information products and services.
        At the same time, GPO will continue to meet the ongoing needs of
    the Government and the public for information products and services in
    traditional formats. Over the next six 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, and for guaranteeing both the authenticity of
    official Government information as well as permanence. While we
    envision a gradual decline in GPO's size as the mix of electronic and
    traditional work we produce changes over time, maintaining a well-
    equipped and expertly staffed printing and dissemination capability for
    the foreseeable future will give us an important tool to manage this
    transition.
        Audit Recommendations Status Report.--Consistent with the
    requirement contained in House Report 105-734, accompanying H.R. 4112,
    the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, we have
    submitted the second annual report on the status of actions to
    implement the recommendations contained in the management audit of GPO,
    conducted in 1998 by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
        As with last year's status report, the latest report shows that GPO
    either plans to act, is currently acting, or has acted affirmatively on
    more than 75 percent of the recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen
    & Hamilton final audit report. These include recommendations on
    planning, program modernization, ensuring financial stability,
    promoting intra-agency communications, and improving information
    technology capabilities as well as ensuring preparedness for the Year
    2000. We will continue to utilize the Booz-Allen & Hamilton
    recommendations to make management improvements to GPO operations.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
    prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
    have.

               [From the Congressional Record, February 16, 2000]

               Government Printing Office: Still Better Than Ever

        Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to bring to the House's
    attention an article about the Government Printing Office from the
    December 1999 issue of In-Plant Graphics.
        This prestigious printing-industry journal has, for a second
    consecutive year, ranked the Government Printing Office first among the
    ``Top 50'' printing plants surveyed, thus labeling GPO as the best in-
    plant operation in America. The December 1998 issue of In-Plant
    Graphics, while bestowing the same honor for the first time, described
    the GPO as ``better than ever.'' These accolades, from a respected
    trade publication, together speak volumes about the diligence and
    dedication of the versatile GPO workforce.
        As the 1999 article, entitled ``The Digitizing of GPO,'' reveals,
    in recent years technology has changed dramatically the way many
    Americans acquire government information, and the GPO has been in the
    vanguard. GPO still prints the Congressional Record and the Federal
    Register each night for its many customers who must have traditional
    paper copies, including the Congress itself, and produces other printed
    products around the clock. However, GPO also distributes these and
    other products in electronic format, quickly, economically and widely.
        As a case in point, late one Friday afternoon last November, the
    federal district court in Washington delivered to GPO for publication
    its findings of fact in the Microsoft antitrust case, a proceeding of
    immense economic significance and national interest. Within one hour of
    GPO's subsequent release of the document at 6:30 PM, interested persons
    had accessed it 152,000 times through a special GPO website established
    for that purpose. Simultaneously, walk-in customers could purchase
    printed copies of the document in GPO's main bookstore.
        While preserving its capability to produce ink-on-paper, GPO
    recognizes that demand for electronic products will increase
    exponentially in the years ahead. The public already downloads over 21
    million documents each month through GPO Access [http://
    www.access.gpo.gov], GPO's electronic gateway to more than 160,000
    federal titles. The GPO is committed to working with its customers and
    others to facilitate that change. GPO is itself reaping the benefits of
    technology and passing the savings along to the American people. The
    agency accomplishes all these feats with 30 percent fewer production
    employees than it had just six years ago.
        Mr. Speaker, please join me in saluting the dedicated men and women
    of the digitized Government Printing Office, still better than ever.
    The article follows:

                    [From the In-Plant Graphics, Dec. 1999]

                             THE DIGITIZING OF GPO

                               (By Bob Neubauer)

        When the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia
    prepared to release Judge Thomas P. Jackson's ``Findings of Fact'' in
    the Microsoft case in November, the court contacted the U.S. Government
    Printing Office. GPO was asked to make advance preparations for the
    rapid dissemination of the document. GPO, as always, was ready for the
    challenge.
        Judge Jackson's decision was announced at 4:30, and the court sent
    a printed copy and a disk version of the 207-page document to GPO,
    where print production began immediately. Covers had been produced in
    advance. By 6:30, when GPO's main bookstore reopened, copies were
    available. By 8:30, 147 had been sold.
        Meanwhile, GPO made the findings available on its Web site in
    WordPerfect, PDF and HTML formats. It established a URL for this
    information (usvms.gpo.gov). In the first hour of release, the site
    experienced 152,000 successful connections.
        For GPO, the largest in-plant in the country, such monumental
    projects have become second nature.
        Now in its 139th year of existence, GPO drastically changed itself
    over the past few years from a strictly ink-on-paper provider to a
    high-tech digital data delivery organization. The public downloads some
    20 million documents a month from GPO Access, GPO's Web site
    (www.access.gpo.gov).
        ``We're putting more and more electronic products up, which seems
    to be what the public wants,'' notes Public Printer Michael DiMario. He
    recently signed a request for more Internet bandwidth in the form of a
    T3 line to accommodate the anticipated demand.
        The successful online dissemination of the Microsoft findings was
    welcome news for those who remember the initial posting of the Starr
    Report last year, when GPO Access was jammed with traffic, which
    clogged the system.
        ``We took certain steps to upgrade the number of T1 lines that we
    have and install additional servers,'' notes Andrew M. Sherman,
    director of congressional, legislative and public affairs. A BigIP load
    balancer, served by five T1 lines, kept heavy volume from freezing some
    visitors out.
        Over the past few years, Sherman notes, online delivery has helped
    to decrease print volume--as well as outside procurement. (Also
    contributing were shrinking government budgets and fewer requested
    copies.) Concurrently, the skills of GPO's work force have migrated
    toward the electronic end.
        But print is still strong. GPO's two new Krause America LX170
    computer-to-plate systems are now up to speed, Sherman says, and
    they're being used to run plates for all major publications, including
    the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. The new passport
    bindery line is operational, as well. And with 7.5 million passports
    passing through GPO last year, the line has its work cut out for it.
        In the next decade, DiMario says, GPO will strengthen its efforts
    to share its expertise with other government agencies. Already it has
    expanded its Federal Printing and Electronic Publishing Institute,
    which offers courses to help agencies deal with technological changes.
        GPO also hopes to provide digital access to even more government
    documents in the future, he says. As for GPO's size, DiMario doesn't
    see it changing much. GPO has already downsized dramatically in the
    1990s. In 1994 it employed 1,701 production personnel; today there are
    1,173.
        ``We're probably scaled back as much as we can be . . . without
    some potential problems,'' observes DiMario. ``We've got a very
    professional work force. The results speak for themselves.''

                                Y2K PREPAREDNESS

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        Let me just for the record make a comment. The last time
    you were here it was not your happiest moment before this
    subcommittee as there was a controversy about the level of your
    preparedness with respect to Y2K, differences in your
    estimation and those of GAO. I should for the sake of the
    record state that Mr. DiMario came to my office along with the
    experts from GAO and we had a very constructive and useful
    session where those issues were discussed and the differences
    between the two agencies were ironed out.
        We are delighted, of course, with the fact that there were
    no Y2K problems, the Congressional Record printed appropriately
    and on time, and that the projections that you made, Mr.
    DiMario, about your level of preparedness came true. I think,
    given some of the questions that were raised last year, it is
    only appropriate that that be formally acknowledged in the
    record this year and that you be given appropriate
    congratulations for the work you did.
        I know that was a very serious approach on your part. You
    took the issue seriously and dealt with it in a professional
    way, and we need to acknowledge that.
        Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate that
    very much.

                                BUDGET INCREASE

        Senator Bennett. You are asking for a 17.5 percent increase
    over last year. Can you highlight for us why the increase or
    the particular areas that lead to that kind of an increase,
    because it is greater than the cost of living increase or other
    kinds of normal step-ups that we would have. I think the record
    should show those areas specifically where that increase is
    coming.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. In congressional printing and
    binding (CP&B) we are asking for a $7.5 million increase.
    $2.283 million of that request is for COLA's, and let me
    clarify. That is $2,283,000. $5,220,000 is for workload
    increases. We are basing that workload increase on the fact
    that this is a Presidential election year and we historically
    looked to similar kinds of years when we do workload
    projections. So we are adjusting our workload based on that
    historic data.
        We also have----
        Senator Bennett. Excuse me. What is the impact of
    Presidential elections? More speeches?
        Mr. DiMario. Well, as an example, we will have the
    Inauguration itself. We have to do the printing and binding for
    the Inauguration. That is some $280,000 in cost, or it was last
    election. We anticipate that it will probably be a little bit
    more this coming election. But that is for the printing and
    binding associated with the inaugural itself, so it is those
    kinds of costs.
        I cannot say that there are more speeches, but a beginning
    Congress with a new President, there seems to be historically
    greater workload.
        Senator Bennett. I see.
        Mr. DiMario. In addition to that, we have a requirement
    that is statutory that gets placed against the CP&B to produce
    the United States Code. That is done every 6 years where the
    entire code is replaced. We have included $2.9 million for that
    in the CP&B appropriation request.
        We have also included an amount of $6 million for air
    conditioning replacement which I mentioned in my opening
    remarks. As you will recall, we included that last year and
    this committee approved an amount of I believe $5 million at
    that time. In conference, the House did not recommend it and
    the item was deleted. We still have that requirement, we need
    the money, and so we are again asking that and hope that in
    your wisdom you feel that funding it is appropriate.
        When we put the air conditioning in initially it was done
    as an extraordinary line item and not placed against the rates
    that we charge to our customers, which is the only other way we
    would fund this item.
        In addition, we have some increased funding for our Office
    of Superintendent of Documents and those amounts are a result
    of an increase in electronic access, distribution of the United
    States Code to depository and international exchange libraries,
    and the need for some increased staffing. It also reflects just
    general pay increases, as does the CP&B budget. We have
    contractual arrangements. We negotiate wages with our employee
    unions and pursuant to those contracts that we have in place
    the employees are entitled to mandatory pay increases. So those
    pay increases are reflected both in the Superintendent of
    Documents Office and in the CP&B.
        In the Superintendent of Documents Office there is a
    request for an additional nine employees that we intend to add,
    some to do inspection work that is required by statute, some to
    do cataloging work for the increased workload that we have
    gotten as a result of our electronic access system. We have
    some 20 million publications that are retrieved from our system
    on a monthly basis. We keep adding titles to it by reaching out
    to other Government agencies and identifying electronic
    products that we can put into the system. But we desperately
    need to be able to catalog those resources that we are adding
    to the system, and so we are adding catalogers. So we have a
    budget increase of $582,000 for nine FTE's.
        I think that in general covers the budget.

                                     Police

        Senator Bennett. I understand you have a police force of
    roughly 50 officers. Would it make any sense to have the
    Capitol Police serve your current needs?
        Mr. DiMario. I certainly would look into it as a way of
    having a more efficient structure. We have a demand on us from
    our current police force to pay wages that are comparable to
    the Capitol Police and to the Library of Congress. The Library
    of Congress had their pay adjusted to a level comparable to the
    Capitol Police by a statute that was introduced a number of
    years ago.
        Senator Bennett. Right.
        Mr. DiMario. Ever since, our police have felt that they are
    part of the legislative branch and they are not treated in the
    same way. However, our function is substantially different. We
    do not have a patrol function for the streets as a general
    rule. We do patrol our parking lots. Other than that, they are
    primarily fixed posts at the building itself. We do not have
    any need to have extraordinary travel elsewhere.
        But I think certainly it would add to the manpower
    structure, the Capitol Police, if they had these additional
    resources. I believe it is worthy of discussion and I would
    certainly look forward to talking to the Capitol Police if you
    believe that would be appropriate.
        Senator Bennett. I think we ought to at least have the
    discussion. It may be when the discussion is over they say
    leave everything as it is.
        But how many incidents do you have that the police deal
    with, and what kind of incidents?
        Mr. DiMario. In number, I cannot give you off the top of my
    head a specific number, but the number is very, very small.
    Some occurrences involve our own employees. Issues might
    pertain to some action where the police stop someone, say, in
    entering the building and the employee might object to that and
    you might have a scuffle of one sort or another. We have had
    those kind of incidents.
        We have had some street crime where, on the sidewalks in
    front of the building or nearby, there have been some instances
    where the police have acted. They do from time to time act when
    there is an accident in front of the building.
        Their jurisdiction by statute is limited to the Government
    Printing Office and the adjacent areas. We have a difficult
    time defining what ``adjacent areas'' means. In concert with
    the Metropolitan Police and the corporation counsel's office, a
    number of years ago we at their request defined that, or they
    defined it, to say that we had no jurisdiction in the streets
    at all, that our jurisdiction ended at the sidewalks.
        That puts the officer in a bit of jeopardy if they react to
    a crime occurring across the street. It puts the agency in
    jeopardy, and that is difficult. We do have a delegation from
    the Metropolitan Police Department to issue Metropolitan
    parking tickets on our parking lot premises.
        By way of jurisdiction, I would submit that the Capitol
    Police also have a concurrent jurisdiction in this expanded
    area that they showed on their chart.
        Senator Bennett. Right. Are you within the expanded area?
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. They come down to H Street and that
    is the defining block for the GPO.

                             FACILITY CONSOLIDATION

        Senator Bennett. Tell us about your efforts to consolidate
    the operations in the entire metropolitan area. Specifically,
    is there excess space at the North Capitol Street location?
        Mr. DiMario. We have been consolidating space as we have
    caused the agency to reduce in size over the years. So if you
    go back to when I first came to GPO in 1971, we had many more
    field activities in the Washington area. We closed Eisenhower I
    and II and Fairington, three warehouses in northern Virginia.
    We closed a facility at the Navy Yard and at Union Center
    Plaza. We have closed a whole range of facilities and
    consolidated in the central office. We still have facilities in
    Laurel, Maryland. We gave up 25,000 square feet of space this
    last year. I think we mentioned that in the hearing last year.
        As the sales of Government publications program has reduced
    in demand--the number of publications, because we are putting
    up electronic products and for other reasons, it is reducing
    substantially--additional space in northern Virginia has become
    excess.
        We are now in the process of looking to move a paper
    warehouse facility that we have in northern Virginia at
    Springbelt to the Laurel facility and to better utilize the
    space out there. Our hope is to reduce the warehouse facility
    space by an additional 180,000 square feet. It happens that the
    lease is up in northern Virginia and we are now in that
    process, so hopefully that will occur.
        In the central office, we have not done a recent
    examination of our space. I have just last week initiated such
    an action and have asked our staff to examine the space
    holdings that we have. We are primarily a factory, so we have
    just a small amount of office space that is configured as
    office space. From past experience, it is quite expensive to
    turn industrial space that was built for a factory into office
    space.
        We will look to see what surplus space we have available
    and we will consider leasing that space to other Government
    agencies. In the past we did have a small amount of space that
    we leased to FAA and also to the Census Monitoring Board. But
    at present we have no one in there.

                             REVOLVING FUND LOSSES

        Senator Bennett. Finally, can you talk about the losses in
    the revolving fund?
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. The losses have been primarily in
    two areas. In the printing procurement program, the workload
    has declined substantially and so we had a loss of some $5
    million. In the sale of publications area, we had a loss of
    some $9 million. We had some other areas in which we had an
    overrecovery of costs, so our net loss was $5 million.
        The sale of publications program is one that we are giving
    considerable attention to. I directed that we immediately
    increase our pricing structure by 15 percent. That is being
    undertaken. With some of our subscription sales, that becomes
    problematic to do instantly because you bring those on when the
    subscription renewals are due. So we are undertaking that.
    Other publications are being priced as they become available
    with a 15 percent increase.
        We are also looking at, as I mentioned, warehouse
    consolidation. That will cut our costs dramatically and
    hopefully offset some of those losses that we had. We are also
    looking to cut our personnel costs in that area. Even though I
    mentioned an increase in personnel before in the Superintendent
    of Documents Office, those nine personnel are not in the Sale
    of Publications Program. They are in the salaries and expenses
    appropriation.
        So hopefully we will be able to consolidate and downsize
    and contain that loss that we have had. To a degree, the losses
    are a mark of our success. The more publications we have put up
    on line, the fewer we have for sale or that we are able to sell
    in paper. That expressly happened with the CFR's. CFR's were
    among our best sellers, and the Federal Register. As we put
    more and more CFR's up as electronic products, the demand for
    the paper products just fell apart. In fact, I would say the
    subscription sale loss from the Congressional Record and the
    Federal Register and the CFR's is the bulk of the loss in the
    sales program. So we are doing what we can there.
        In the printing procurement program, I am offsetting the
    losses there, where we have had a decline in volume. We have
    consolidated as much as possible, we have reduced staffing. I
    also imposed a price increase. The price that we charged
    Government agencies was 6 percent of the procured cost of the
    product. Products were coming in at very, very good prices for
    a number of years because paper prices had been very, very
    depressed and paper is a very large part of the cost of a
    procured printing job.
        So I have directed that we move that surcharge from 6
    percent to 7 percent. Again, I did that to coincide with the
    fiscal year change, so that implementation was to begin with
    October 1. So we are in that phase right now. We think that
    measure, given the volume that we have and other things that
    are being done, should cause the program to be operating in the
    black, or at least at the break-even point, by the end of the
    year.
        I would point out that, given all of this, if you look at
    our total budget that we handle, that flows through GPO, the
    loss of $5 million or the underrecovery of $5 million is about
    0.6 of 1 percent of the total. So while it is something that we
    do not want to happen, we are a breakeven and a not-for-profit
    operation. So we are fairly close to what we are supposed to be
    doing.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Bennett. And the increase from 6 percent to 7
    percent could wipe that out?
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, I think that will do that. All our
    calculations that we have gone through, we think that increase
    will make us solvent.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Question. With reference to the tables for ``Congressional Billings
    for Committees,'' on pages 11-16 and 11-17 of GPO's Fiscal Year 2001
    Budget Justification, it stands out that the House Appropriations
    Committee's billings is far in excess of any other committee of either
    the House or Senate. For example, the total billing for the House
    Appropriations Committee was $4,081,671; but the Senate Appropriations
    Committee, by contrast, was only $465,726. The major expense was for
    printing of ``hearings,'' which totals $3,649,578 for the House
    Appropriations Committee, but only $87,379 for the Senate
    Appropriations Committee. I would like to say, however, that we in the
    Senate do not want, in any way, to criticize the manner in which the
    House Committee on Appropriations handles its printing of hearings, nor
    any other committee for that matter, but it appears that no other
    committee in either the House or Senate comes anywhere near this
    amount.
        Can you tell us why there is such a significant difference in
    printing expenses between the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees--what may have caused this huge difference? And, have you
    made any effort to improve efficiency in this area, or is this just one
    of those unavoidable situations where little can be done to achieve
    savings?
        Answer. The difference in billing amounts between the House and
    Senate Appropriations Committees is, in large part, due to two factors:
    a substantial variance in the numbers of volumes and pages of hearings
    and other publications submitted by each Committee, and significant
    disparities in the formats in which each Committee submits material to
    GPO.
        First, the number of appropriations hearings printed during the
    past two fiscal years averaged 71 volumes per year for the House
    compared to only 21 volumes per year for the Senate. Further, in fiscal
    year 1999, House appropriations hearings averaged 1,172 pages each
    compared to only 674 pages for the Senate.
        Second, the Senate makes greater use of GPO's Microcomp typesetting
    system, scans submitted material or obtains electronic files, and
    submits all material electronically to GPO. The House, due to the
    larger volume of hearings produced as well as tighter publishing
    schedules, submits a large volume of materials in formats that require
    keyboarding and proofreading at GPO. Reporters' hearing transcripts are
    marked up by witnesses and submitted to GPO with the electronic file to
    be updated and proofread. The House Appropriations Committee also
    submits a large amount of camera copy, from which GPO produces
    negatives for use in the printing process. While camera copy is a more
    cost effective and efficient format than manuscript, its shortcomings
    include the lack of a searchable electronic database.
        It should be noted that part of the cost difference is mitigated by
    the fact that the Senate Appropriations Committee has three to four
    detailed GPO printers who prepare much of the material and create
    electronic files. The cost of these details ($291,000 in fiscal year
    1999) was charged to the Congressional Printing and Binding
    Appropriation, not to individual hearings.
        GPO plans include capturing the House Appropriations Committee
    camera copy in electronic format (encapsulated PostScript) during the
    proofing cycle so that pages can be output with the graphics included
    in place. When accomplished, these pages can then be handled via our
    computer-to-plate system rather than being conventionally composed.
    This will also facilitate an improved online product that includes
    graphics in place. Future improvements will likely involve increased
    capture of validated keystrokes electronically at the time of document
    creation, minimizing the need for scanning or rekeying and
    proofreading, as well as expanded computer-to-plate capacity at GPO.
        Question. In recent years, the use of technology has expanded
    throughout the federal government, resulting in dramatic changes in the
    way federal agencies operate. Can you tell the committee the extent of
    impact (both good and bad) on GPO as a result of these recent
    technological advances?
        Answer. The impact of technology on GPO has been overwhelmingly
    positive from the standpoint of improved services and reduced overall
    costs to the public to access government information. At the same time,
    the implementation of new technology continues to present serious
    management challenges. There has been a cost shifting, as the cost of
    traditional hard copy publications has declined, but the costs of
    providing electronic services has increased. This has required re-
    alignment of the workforce, training, new equipment and software. GPO's
    request for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation for fiscal year
    2001 includes an increase of $1.6 million to adequately fund GPO
    Access, an award-winning online service. GPO Access was established by
    law, and began operation in 1994. GPO Access links the public with
    about 170,000 titles. Overall, the public has retrieved more than 520
    million documents since 1994. Monthly document retrievals average more
    than 21 million, or about 924 gigabytes of information. Increased
    funding is required for additional products and capacity and to assure
    permanent access to the Federal Depository Library Electronic
    Collection.
        The reduced volume of paper publications throughout Government and
    the reduced demand for paper formats of government publications by the
    public, has created financial strains on GPO's General Sales Program.
    For example, GPO placed one of GPO's best sellers, the Federal
    Register, online in 1994. Since then, subscriptions have declined from
    19,300 to about 6,700 today. The decline in sales volume has a negative
    impact on GPO's revolving fund revenue, making it difficult to fully
    recover costs. GPO is responding with a number of management actions to
    reduce costs and improve marketing of Government publications.
        Question. You are requesting a legislative change to Section 303 of
    Title 44 regarding the pay of the Public Printer and Deputy Public
    Printer. Would such a salary increase for the Public Printer and Deputy
    Public Printer trickle down to your top-level administrators who might
    be capped at their senior-manager level?
        Answer. As a result of the legislative change being requested,
    there would be no automatic impact on the salary cap of senior-manager
    level employees at the Government Printing Office. Any increase to the
    salary cap, which is presently the same as Executive Level IV, would
    require a determination by the Public Printer.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Bennett. I have nothing further. Thank you very
    much for coming in. We appreciate your hard work and your
    attention to these kinds of details.
        Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. With that, the hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., Tuesday, February 22, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett, Stevens, Craig, Feinstein,
    Durbin.
        Also present: Senator Mikulski.

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
                CAPITOL

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. The committee will come to order. Senator
    Feinstein has been delayed with other pressures, and we all
    understand how that happens to us, but we look forward to her
    joining us when she can so I will insert her statement in the
    record at this point.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        I look forward to receiving the testimony of the three
    distinguished panelists appearing before the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Subcommittee today. I have several written
    questions for our panelists which, with the consent of Chairman
    Bennett, will be entered as part of the hearing record, along
    with their responses.
        With respect to the Architect of the Capitol, I would just
    like to say how delighted I am that the work on the Senate
    Employees Child Care Center has finally been completed.
    Although there were a number of problems that seemed to plague
    the project during the construction phase, it has been through
    the dedication and persistence of so many of the people
    involved that we now have a wonderful facility where our
    employees' little ones can learn and play in a safe
    environment. It has been something in which I have taken a keen
    interest, and I want to thank the Architect of the Capitol, Mr.
    Hantman, as well as the Center's Board of Directors and staff,
    for their perseverance in working with the contractor to meet
    those challenges and to finally get the doors open for the new
    facility.
        Additionally, I want to say to the Architect that I
    certainly appreciate and understand the magnitude of his
    responsibilities. It seems almost incomprehensible to undertake
    a project as large as the Visitors Center, while at the same
    time, making essential repairs and renovations to the Capitol,
    as well as other congressional office buildings. Adding to the
    complexity of these tasks is the ever-present challenge to
    maintain the historic beauty and dignity of the magnificent
    buildings within our Capitol Complex.
        I welcome Senator Mikulski to our Legislative Branch
    hearing this morning. I understand she may have a few concerns
    she would like to raise with the Architect, and I welcome her
    participation.

        Senator Bennett. Now, this is the third of four hearings
    that the subcommittee will hold on the fiscal 2001 budget
    request. Our last hearing, which had been scheduled for
    Tuesday, March 7, will be rescheduled to Tuesday, March 21.
    Senator Feinstein reminded me that Tuesday, March 7 is primary
    day in California, and she will have other responsibilities on
    that day. So, we will allow her to vote in California without
    any sense of conflict back here, and hold the hearing the 21st
    of March.
        Now, today we hear from the Architect of the Capitol, the
    General Accounting Office and the Office of Compliance, in that
    order. So, our first witness will be Alan Hantman, the
    Architect of the Capitol, joined by Michael Turnbull, the
    Assistant Architect, and Stuart Pregnall, the Budget Officer.
        And we have been told that Senator Mikulski, who is a
    member of the full committee, ranking member of the VA-HUD
    Subcommittee, will be joining us. Senator Mikulski, who is also
    a member of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the
    authorizing committee for the Architect of the Capitol--and she
    has shown an interest in the Architect's testimony--may or may
    not have some questions.
        Now, I would like to commend Mr. Hantman and Mr. Turnbull,
    before we hear their formal statements, on their efforts in the
    financial management area. That is an area where there has been
    some controversy in the past. I appreciate the diligent way in
    which you two gentlemen have approached this challenge. We
    comment when there is controversy. There should be comment when
    there is progress.
        So, with an annual budget of over $200 million, plus a new
    visitor's center project to look forward to, a sound financial
    management system obviously is a crucial part of your
    responsibilities, and we know that your office has spent a lot
    of time over the past year working on this project. We would
    like to commend you, and specifically Russ Follin on your
    efforts.
        Now, the Architect has requested $252,121,000, to be exact.
    That is a $41,832,000 increase, or over 20 percent increase
    over fiscal 2000.
        So, Mr. Hantman, with that set up, if you will, of where
    you are and what you are asking for, we will be pleased to hear
    from you.

                               OPENING STATEMENT

        Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
        In addition to Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Pregnall, of course,
    Russ Follin is here from our FMS group. We also have Larry
    Stoffel, our superintendent of the Senate office buildings, and
    Amita Poole, superintendent of the Capitol Building, and
    several other staff members.
        I am also honored to be joined this morning by the
    Honorable Bill Livingood, who is the Sergeant at Arms of the
    House, and also chair of the Capitol Police Board. He joins the
    Honorable Jim Ziglar, who is Sergeant at Arms, as you know, of
    the Senate, and Chief Abrecht, to respond to any questions that
    we might have regarding the $7.5 million in Capitol projects we
    have in our budget for the Capitol Police this fiscal year.

                                      Y2K

        Before I start my testimony, though, Mr. Chairman, may I
    preface my remarks by indicating that, as you know, today is
    Y2K-light. And I am pleased to report that on February 29,
    today, just as on January 1, 2000, the Y2K bug did not bite.
    And as you know, that of course, is due to an awful lot of good
    cooperative work from all the agencies and jurisdictions across
    the Hill.
        It was a wonderful display of people really throwing
    themselves into a project, and basically your exhortations and
    your leadership really were key to that also. So, I want to
    thank you for that, and thankfully that is now out of our way.
    Everything is pretty much under control and we can move on to
    other business.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        I am pleased to present to you the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for this agency. I am very proud of the progress we
    have made to date over the last 3 years. There is an awful lot
    of rebuilding we have had to do.
        We here on Capitol Hill are really emerging from a time
    capsule. We have a small city here, some 24 buildings that have
    been built over the last 200 years. We have 30,000 people who
    work here on a daily basis. On a peak day, we might have 25,000
    people coming to visit us. It is 273 acres. This is a small
    city. And it is a city that evolved over this 200 years with
    its own unique methods of operating.
        Now, not until the Congressional Accountability Act took
    effect in 1997, that you really had to take into account things
    such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, or the
    Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
        And clearly those pointed out issues of need in this
    agency, and it is very appropriate for Senator Mikulski--good
    morning and welcome--to come in because Senator Mikulski, of
    course, championed the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources
    Act which really called for fair methods of proceeding for
    modern management procedures and techniques; for an end to the
    glass ceiling; for an opportunity for people to have upward
    mobility. All of these issues are issues that we have been
    addressing, and we are working on, and we still have more to
    do.

                              AOC RESPONSIBILITIES

        So, although you mentioned very large budget issues, I
    would like to couch them in the context of what our
    responsibilities are campus wide. And to this effect, we have
    appended to our testimony and to our budget request, some 11
    appendices dealing with a wide range of responsibilities.
        The first one, appendix A, deals with life safety issues.
    Appendix C responds specifically to the Architect of the
    Capitol Human Resources Act, and many of the concerns that
    Senator Mikulski has been championing these years. Appendix H
    deals with the financial management systems.
        So, there is an awful lot of information there. Some of it
    is budget related, but most of it really is fed by the budget
    process in terms of staffing or in terms of finance.
        So, as I stated, there really is still much to be done, and
    that is really why our budget focuses on four priorities this
    year. The first priority is to continue the process of creating
    an even safer physical environment for Members, for staff and
    for visitors from a life safety perspective.
        Second priority is to improve customer service. That is why
    our budget includes things such as a request for funding to
    provide daytime cleaning in public and restroom areas,
    something that does not exist right now, and there has
    certainly been some controversy in terms of the level of
    cleanliness that we can maintain with just nighttime cleaning.
        That is because we have such a high volume of visitors,
    many people coming through the buildings. We need to hit those
    spaces much more frequently than just on the nighttime shift.
        We are also requesting funding for staff, staff for fire
    safety issues, staff for project management and planning. These
    are all major issues that we need to address.
        A third area of responsibility that we want to focus on is
    enhancing the preservation, utility, the security of our
    buildings. Bids for the Senate perimeter security should be in
    within the next 2 weeks. We will be coming back to you in May
    for the release of funds that have already been approved for
    Capitol Square perimeter security. At that time, the final
    design drawings will have been completed.
        Our fourth criteria is continuing to build a stronger,
    better trained staff. The social architecture of our agency is
    very necessary to address all of our priorities. We are a
    service agency. Our people are essentially the backbone of
    everything that we do. So, our fiscal year 2001 budget really
    has been structured to support these four priorities.
        Appendix F discusses several of our ongoing projects,
    including the multi-phase Dirksen renovation project, which
    you, Senator, have clearly experienced from a first-hand
    perspective.
        We are into our fifth phase of that project right now, and
    we have been getting wonderful cooperation from Members, from
    staff. Clearly any project of this nature causes dislocations
    and we have tried to minimize that, and I think successfully to
    a large extent.

                            DOME RESTORATION PROJECT

        Appendix F also talks about the first phase of the Dome
    Restoration Project, which is proceeding very well, and we
    should be wrapping that up in the next several months within
    budget. But you will not see in our budget a funding request
    for the second phase of the Dome Project. We will be coming
    back to you in fiscal year 2002 for those funds.
        They are needed, but in terms of limited finance ability,
    limited budgeting ability and our staffing needs, we need to
    focus on the four priorities I addressed before.
        And the results of the study that we have done so far, the
    work we have done so far, indicate that the Dome is
    structurally sound. There is no immediate threat of collapse or
    anything of this nature.
        We still do have problems of leakage. We still do have the
    need to remove the lead based paint from the exterior, re-prime
    it, repaint it, recast some of these sections. But with the
    priorities that I have established before, we think that we can
    put this off one more year. We will be coming back to you in
    successive years for that.
        So I really do, Mr. Chairman, want to thank you for your
    leadership, for your support. We are going to continue to build
    the physical, social infrastructure to improve this agency and
    support Congress as we go forward.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We would be more than happy to talk about any of the issues
    that we have in the appendices and the budget. And thank you
    for your attention.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman

        Mr. Chairman: As we step into a new millennium, we also celebrate
    200 years of Congressional occupancy of our Capitol, this magnificent
    structure that is the physical representation of democracy not only for
    our nation, but for the world. There have been many changes inside
    these walls over those two centuries, but it is undoubtedly true that
    at no time in history has the office of the Architect of the Capitol
    experienced more fundamental change, or had so many essential projects
    to accomplish, than in the brief time since I have been privileged to
    be Architect of the Capitol.
        I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to propose the
    fiscal year 2001 budget for the Architect of the Capitol. I look
    forward to working with you as we continue, together, to build the
    social and physical infrastructure that will better serve and support
    the United States Congress as it meets the constant and changing needs
    of the American people and nation this coming year and far into the
    future.
        I am often asked how I like the position of Architect of the
    Capitol. And I usually respond: It is a magnificent challenge. It is
    magnificent because of the unique structures and grounds and
    environment I work with here. It is magnificent because of the
    opportunity to support the greatest legislative body in the history of
    the world.
        Magnificent, yet, it is equally challenging. It is a challenge to
    move forward on many fronts, to simultaneously protect the past,
    support Congress in the present, and plan and build for its future. It
    is a challenge to work in an atmosphere that must be, at the same time,
    open and accessible yet safe and secure; where offices never fully
    empty and efforts never cease; and where the work of the AOC must
    minimize inconvenience while creating the structure to augment the
    essential tasks of Congress.
        We often refer to our complex here as the Capitol Campus. But it is
    actually a community. And it is a city that in some respects is
    emerging from a time capsule.
        Our city of more than two dozen buildings, more than 270 acres,
    more than two centuries of rich experience--and as many as 30,000 daily
    inhabitants and visitors--developed in its own special manner. Until
    provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act went into effect
    only three years ago, we in AOC were not affected by provisions such as
    the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Occupational Safety and
    Health Act of 1970. We had our own structures. We had our own ways. Now
    we are attempting to make a giant stride, more than six decades long,
    into the 21st century.
        Our challenge is to meet today's needs--without destroying
    yesterday's heritage for those who will occupy this special place in
    the future.
        While there is clearly much work left to be done, we have made
    significant progress and are proud of what has been accomplished so far
    in rebuilding the foundation of this agency. Because of the great scope
    of work we face, and the challenges we must successfully meet with a
    reduced workforce, it is necessary for us to specifically focus our
    efforts this year in four areas that are essential to our ongoing core
    mission of supporting and serving the Congress.
        These areas are:
      --Creating an even safer physical environment for Members, staff and
            visitors in line with the requirements of the Congressional
            Accountability Act;
      --Improving the delivery of customer services;
      --Enhancing the preservation, utility and security of our buildings,
            with the Capitol Visitor Center being a notable illustration;
      --Continuing to build a stronger, better trained staff--which is the
            very foundation necessary to address the first three
            priorities.
        As I have testified in the past, the level of employees in this
    agency has decreased from 2,407 in fiscal year 1993 to a current
    ceiling level of 2,012--a 16 percent decrease in staffing. Current
    actual employment is lower because we are in the process of backfilling
    re-engineered positions as a result of the first phase of our recent
    buyout, which is detailed in Appendix C of this testimony. At the same
    time, our workload has increased due to the need for physical
    improvements to modernize and enhance safety in these aging structures.
    It is important to recognize that we have reached the saturation point
    where the amount of work to be done in several areas has taxed our
    staff capacities to the fullest extent. We are therefore requesting
    funding for critical staffing needs for life safety, service delivery,
    and project support, as well as for the tools needed by our staff to do
    our jobs more effectively.
        Because of the necessity of moving forward in these critical areas,
    with their attendant fiscal implications, I am delaying the request for
    appropriations to initiate the next phase of the Capitol Dome
    Renovation Project until next year in order to focus resources on these
    essential areas.
        Work on the Dome can be delayed in the short run because we are
    finishing our first-phase emergency examination of the structure, and
    happily have found that the basic structure is fundamentally sound. The
    next stage of repairing and restoring the cast iron skin and interior
    Rotunda finishes of the Dome is clearly important and needs to be
    addressed in the short term, but in our judgment there are higher
    priorities on which to focus finite resources this year.

                                  LIFE SAFETY

        In this context, planning for and implementation of life safety
    programs throughout the campus remains my number one priority and this
    priority has been supported by Congress through the Congressional
    Accountability Act. Implementing such a program across the campus and
    bringing the Capitol and our other structures into conformance with the
    most modern codes and practices is a process that is complicated by
    virtual full-time occupancy and the extremely limited ``turn around''
    space for the ``musical chairs'' sequencing inherent in the renovation
    process. It also is complicated by the need to change the AOC work
    culture. We need to work out appropriate methods with the committees of
    jurisdiction to accelerate these processes. Appendix A discusses many
    of our initiatives in this area, and projects and planning. Substantial
    appropriations will continue to be required to accomplish this work in
    the coming years.
        The physical, technological and human challenges in both preserving
    the historic integrity of our architectural treasures and bringing them
    into conformance with modern safety standards are difficult and will
    create inconveniences in these buildings, but they are achievable. Once
    again, these fixes will be neither cheap nor quick, and support of this
    effort by the Congress will continue to be needed to accomplish this
    vital work in a timely manner.

                               CUSTOMER SERVICES

        We also must continue to improve the quality of our maintenance
    services to occupants of Capitol Hill. One major example of improved
    services is the need for daytime cleaning of public areas in the House
    and Senate Office Buildings. In order to accomplish this, increases in
    our staffing levels for these functions are required. This request
    includes additional staff to improve operations, meet life safety
    needs, and improve project management; as well as funding to continue
    to build improved operational tools and services such as computer-
    assisted facilities management, financial management systems, and
    improvements in information resource management.

                                 BUDGET SUMMARY

        Our total request is $252,121,000, which is a $41,832,000 increase
    over the fiscal year 2000 level, broken down as follows: Our operating
    budget requested increase is $18,577,000 over last year's amount of
    $164,805,000. This increase is mostly due to mandatory COLAs, increased
    operations and maintenance costs, and the request for additional staff
    described above. Our capital budget increase is $23,255,000 over last
    year's funding level. This includes $7.45 million for projects
    requested by the Capitol Police and $6 million for projects requested
    by the Library of Congress. It also includes $9 million for major
    repairs, life safety and security upgrades to the Cannon House Office
    Building Garage. It is important to note that all of the capital
    projects in this request meet our 100 percent design requirement.
        As described in the attached appendices, we have successfully
    completed an extraordinary amount of work and instituted essential and
    fundamental changes in the three years I have been Architect of the
    Capitol. We have gone a long way toward implementing Congressional
    directives by instituting a 100 percent design policy, continuing to
    overhaul and improve our personnel systems (Appendix C), continuing to
    build a vital staff to move forward on the challenging life safety
    front, and have created a financial management system cross servicing
    agreement and are beginning to implement the basic general ledger needs
    it encompasses (Appendix H). However, these important steps are only
    the beginning of the marathon we must run to build an agency that meets
    the challenges of this new millennium. Our budget reflects our
    essential priorities and needs in order to continue on our course and
    increase the speed and effectiveness of improvements necessary to meet
    our changing times.
        Mr. Chairman, I request that my full statement and supporting
    materials be placed into the record. Several detailed reports on
    accomplishments and initiatives, such as life safety, project
    management, and the budget, are also appended for your information and
    the record.
        I thank you and the other Members of the Subcommittee for your
    leadership and concern in supporting our efforts to better serve
    Congress and the American people.

                    Appendix A.--Initiatives in Life Safety

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The agency has undertaken significant steps to revitalize the life
    safety program. Since last year the AOC has enhanced the newly formed
    Life Safety Program Division with the addition of a new Director and
    Deputy Director. Augmentation of this program with additional personnel
    for the existing Safety and Occupational Health and Fire System and
    Life Safety Branches, as well as the proposed Environmental Branch, of
    the Life Safety Program Division is either underway or under
    development pending funding.
      --The Safety and Occupational Health Branch conducts safety
            inspections of buildings and work sites, drawing and project
            review, provides consultation to the Jurisdictions on safety
            programs and issues, and develops and implements Agency
            programs.
      --The Fire System and Life Safety Branch conducts fire prevention
            inspections, drawing and project reviews, fire alarm system
            programing, and provides oversight to the fire prevention
            program.
      --The proposed Environmental Branch will develop and implement
            program and policy, review projects for environmental impacts,
            provide consultation to the Jurisdictions, and conduct periodic
            oversight inspections.
        Systematic approaches to reviewing and developing programs and
    standard operating procedures throughout the Capitol Complex has begun,
    including baseline surveys and continuous coordination with the Office
    of Compliance survey teams on the detailed process of identifying and
    prioritizing program requirements. Significant steps have been taken to
    identify, correct, and prevent physical and program deficiencies in a
    proactive rather than reactive manner. This is a formidable task that
    requires considerable staff and consultant resources to accomplish at a
    progressive pace. Descriptions of the steps taken and those needed are
    expanded upon below.
        The Life Safety Program Division has submitted an aggressive plan
    and is implementing a Safety Initiative that will bring the Agency
    along the road to further conformance with requirements defined by the
    Congressional Accountability Act. It is important to note that full
    conformance with the Act will be difficult to achieve due to the
    necessity of preserving the historic nature and infrastructure of the
    facilities. The AOC is evaluating the alternative code provisions that
    have been developed to allow for performance based protection, such as
    the NFPA's new Life Safety Code, which was adopted at their Fall 1999
    meeting, and building codes such as those in the states of Wisconsin,
    Pennsylvania and Texas to specifically address the life safety issues
    in historic structures with significant public spaces, monumental
    ceiling heights, open grand stairways, etc. Technology under
    development such as OSHA's Fire Safety Advisor (currently in BETA
    format) will also help with regard to assessment, means, and
    methodology development. Work has also begun on the development of an
    Environmental Branch that will address requirements of the
    Environmental Protection Agency as enforced by the District of
    Columbia.

                               SAFETY INITIATIVE

        A full review and analysis by the Life Safety Program Division will
    be completed this year of the Congressional Accountability Act, the
    referenced Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
    standards, and review of code requirements for both private industry
    and other Federal Agency programs. This review will determine where the
    current AOC program is with regard to the rest of the country, where it
    needs to be, and a validation of the multi-year plan prepared by the
    Life Safety Program Division on how to get it there. The initial
    analysis determined that the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP)
    Model should serve as the framework for the new program and that bench
    marking established safety programs would be done to provide the
    information necessary for the AOC Safety Program. The VPP program was
    established by OSHA to provide private industry and Federal Agencies a
    means of measuring their programs and provide OSHA proof that their
    program is exemplary. Qualifying programs in the VPP program can earn
    certification from OSHA as Star Programs worthy of recognition and
    duplication. The AOC's goal is to develop and implement a program that
    OSHA will consider exemplary. New resources are necessary to accomplish
    this goal to bring the safety program to a compliant level as described
    by the Congressional Accountability Act and are essential to sustain
    the program and keep the AOC on track with any future changes to
    requirements. Resources identified in the fiscal year 2001 budget
    include increases in permanent and contractor staffing, survey and
    analysis costs, and general operating funds. Work has begun in the
    following areas:
        Administration and Management.--This area focuses on how a Safety
    Program is developed and implemented. Several specific elements are
    described to achieve an acceptable level in the VPP framework. These
    include: Development of a Safety Policy Statement and Safety Manual,
    the establishing of Safety Committees with written Charters and
    Policies, and establishment of a Mishap Reporting Policy, a Hazard/
    Close Call Reporting Policy, and a Disciplinary Policy for Safety
    Violations. There must also be a means of measuring job performance
    with regards to safety.
        The existing AOC Safety Manual and program elements are being
    reviewed by the Life Safety Program Division against these
    requirements. Available resources are also being reviewed and the AOC
    safety program plan is being refined. The Human Resource Management
    Division (HRMD) is revising the current Performance Evaluation System
    (PES) to include requirements for evaluating safety in job performance.
    Safety Committees have been formed in several of the Jurisdictions and
    the Life Safety Division is working with these committees to refine
    their charters and objectives. The existing committees are also being
    used as resources in the formation of committees in the other
    Jurisdictions.
        Assessments.--This area focuses on the identification of hazards
    associated with the workplace or job performance. The model requires
    surveys and analysis to be done to fully identify and quantify hazards
    so all information is available to make risk management decisions.
    Actions necessary to meet these requirements include performance of a
    Baseline Hazard Analysis, an Industrial Hygiene Survey, Job Safety
    Analysis, Annual Compliance Audits, and the establishment of
    comprehensive Preventative Maintenance Programs, Contingency Safety
    Plans, Emergency Preparedness Exercises, and Corrective Action Plans.
        The AOC through the use of Life Safety Services, Incorporated, has
    recently conducted the first comprehensive Annual Compliance Audit.
    This audit not only satisfies OSHA requirements by identifying systemic
    deficiencies and areas needing correction, but it also provides
    information necessary for the Life Safety Program Division to focus AOC
    resources. Corrective action plans have been initiated on items not
    requiring funding and a risk assessment analysis is being conducted to
    prioritize corrective actions requiring additional funds. The AOC is
    working with the Public Health Service (PHS) on the completion of
    comprehensive job safety analysis for job assignments at the Capitol
    Power Plant and industrial hygiene surveys for on-going construction
    projects, such as the Dirksen Senate Office Building renovation
    project. PHS is also providing assistance with the identification and
    program development for addressing confined spaces. Work with the Army
    Corp of Engineers is providing information on the location of asbestos
    and lead in Capitol Hill buildings. These surveys must be expanded to
    include all of the complex. The AOC Preventive maintenance Program will
    utilize the CAFM program once fully implemented to schedule, track and
    record maintenance. As previously noted, the AOC has established a Task
    Force on Contingency Safety plans and used that work as part of the Y2K
    initiative.
        Training.--This area focuses on how employees have been prepared to
    perform their assigned tasks in a safe manner. The model requires the
    preparation of a Master Training Plan and emphasizes specific training
    of Safety Committee Members. It also calls out for specific training in
    Mishap Investigation, Emergency Preparedness, OSHA Training for
    Employees and Management, and training in how to conduct a Job Safety
    Analysis.
        The Life Safety Program Division has identified safety training
    required by OSHA for all AOC employees and this training list is being
    coordinated with HRMD to integrate the AOC Safety Master Training Plan
    with the AOC Master Training Plan. The safety training has been
    prioritized, made mandatory, and is underway. Courses can be broken
    down into a one-time requirement, an annual requirement, or a periodic
    requirement based upon working conditions. Eleven of thirty-four one-
    time classes, three of the seven periodic courses and eleven of the
    eleven annual courses have thus far been conducted. Each of these
    courses requires course curriculum development based upon an assessment
    of the requirements of the standard and how the it is applied here.
    Vendor selection is underway for the remaining courses, HRMD is
    preparing for an additional fifteen courses this year.
        Record Keeping.--This area focuses on what information is necessary
    to document the status of the program elements. Actions include the
    development of several databases such as an Inspection Database, a
    Mishap Reporting/Close Call Database, a Hazard Analysis Database, a
    Personal Protective Equipment Database, an Employee Compensation
    Database, and a Corrective Action Tracking Database.
        The Life Safety Program Division is actively reviewing other
    Federal Agency programs to determine if existing databases can be used
    by the AOC or if internal development from scratch is necessary. The
    AOC has already developed and implemented an Occupational Worker's
    Compensation Program database in the past fiscal year. This system is
    being used to identify trends and areas needing focused attention.
    Further database development will be dependent upon program and policy
    development. Each Jurisdiction will be required to develop standard
    operating procedures to ensure appropriate input, use, and integration
    of these databases. The Life Safety Program Division will provide
    guidelines and assistance to the Jurisdictions on this development.
    Corrective action tracking is currently being done by each Jurisdiction
    using various methods such as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. These are
    now being reviewed by the Life Safety Program Division. Efforts are
    underway to integrate these into a uniform format so the creation of a
    central database can be expedited.
        Document Review.--This area focuses on how the program adjusts to
    changes in requirements, technology, and hazards. The AOC model
    requires a complete document review, document updates for existing
    areas as appropriate, and preparation of documents for areas where none
    exist. It also requires an annual review and revision of documents as
    appropriate.
        An extensive review of current program documentation is underway.
    It is anticipated most of the current documentation will require an
    update to comply with current requirements. Preliminary reviews also
    indicate a significant effort will be required to address areas not
    currently having documentation. Much of this effort will be in the
    development of standard operating procedures at the Jurisdictional
    level defining program implementation.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INITIATIVE

        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the AOC in June
    of 1999 that a Preliminary Assessment in conformance with the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA or Superfund) was required from the AOC for the Capitol Hill
    Complex. This assessment provides the EPA with information on the
    potential for pollution of the environment from Capitol Hill
    facilities. Preliminary Assessments are reviewed by the EPA for
    determination of sites needing closer examination or remediation. The
    Life Safety Program Division has begun a review of the program
    requirements associated with Environmental Protection Agency laws and
    regulations. LSSI during their baseline safety survey was tasked to
    provide an assessment of environmental conformance. This survey
    identified numerous program areas requiring review and development.
    Issues such as waste water discharge permitting, Spill Prevention,
    Control, and Countermeasures Plans, inventory of chemicals and storage
    areas, and secondary containment issues were identified. Additional
    personnel and contractor support has been requested to begin the
    detailed program review and development associated with all aspects of
    the Environmental Program.
        The Life Safety Program Division currently has one Hazardous Waste
    Specialist on staff addressing hazardous waste collection and removal.
    This Specialist is also responsible for coordination of the AOC
    Recycling Program. Program information on recycle collected for fiscal
    year 1999 is provided in the table below.

                                                                 RECYCLE PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLES
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Fiscal year 1999 Tons                             Fiscal
                                                                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------  year 1999
                                   Bldg.                                                                                                            dollar
                                                                        High grade     Mixed     Newspaper  Corrugated  Contaminated    Total/      amount
                                                                                     grade \1\                 board     (No value)    building     earned
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RHOB..............................................................      89.438     135.985     139.530  ..........      919.188    1,284.141      17,340
    CHOB..............................................................      19.240     103.858      52.055       3.240      603.813      782.206       5,635
    HSOB \2\..........................................................       1.593     222.395        .755  ..........      379.180      603.923       4,238
                                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.......................................................     110.271     462.238     192.340       3.240    1,902.181    2,670.270      27,213
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes both mixed paper and paper graded as commercial office mix.
    \2\ Includes high grade paper collected from the Capitol, Senate side.

        The General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the
    recycling contract, credits the AOC with the amount earned from
    recycling. Funds received from GSA are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.
    In addition to the funds earned and the positive environmental impact
    that recycling has, cost avoidance is achieved because waste sent for
    recycling is eliminated from AOC landfill costs. Based on avoided
    tipping fees and transportation costs, a saving of approximately $77
    per ton of waste sent for recycling is achieved. For fiscal year 1999,
    based on more than 2,670 tons of waste sent for recycling, the
    approximate saving is $205,600.
        Jurisdictional personnel are responsible for the daily coordination
    and pick-up of recycle associated with their buildings. The recycle
    program implemented in fiscal year 1999 installed desk cans and
    relabelled centralized containers. The Life Safety Program Division
    coordinates the overall program, administers the contract for
    collection, and provides oversight and consultation services.

                  CONSULTANT SUPPORT FOR LIFE SAFETY PROGRAMS

        In the preparation and presentation of fiscal 2000 and 2001 budget
    requests, life safety capital projects were placed in their own project
    category, and were given the highest priority. As each project was put
    forth for consideration, the agency used design/build criteria to meet
    current life safety standards while carefully integrating these systems
    into the Capitol complex's historic surroundings. Starting back in
    March 1997 the agency has used the services of several firms to provide
    the technical expertise and the much needed resource support required
    within the Life Safety Program Division to address program
    requirements.
        In August 1997, the consulting firm of KCCT was hired to study exit
    doors throughout the complex and prescribe a plan of correction to
    permit proper egress in an emergency and facilitate the integrated
    installation of security devices as required by the U.S. Capitol
    Police. This work has included redefining the direction doors swing
    open, replacement of revolving doors, frame modifications to house
    security hardware and redesigning vestibules to accommodate egress
    requirements, all while maintaining a design that is compatible with
    the architectural surroundings.
        At the present time, more than 72 doors in the Capitol, House and
    Senate Office Buildings have been reconfigured to fully meet life
    safety requirements. Sixty-five more remain uncorrected and have
    engineering and architectural design requirements which necessitate
    funding requirements. These will be addressed as funding permits.
        In October 1997, James Posey Associates was placed under contract
    to provide professional services, material and equipment necessary to
    provide construction documents for sprinkler protection (and other
    services) within the Dirksen Senate Office Building. This project began
    on April 12, 1999. James Posey and Associates have also been utilized
    in the upgrade of the Rayburn House Office Building. This project is
    currently at the contractor bid stage of procurement.
        The fire protection consulting firm of Gage-Babcock was placed
    under contract in September, 1998, to respond to task orders. These
    included:

      --General Fire Protection Description of all facilities and complex
            wide fire and emergency management systems
        --Omega Sprinkler recall identification.--This provided quantities
                and locations of recalled sprinkler heads throughout the
                Capitol Complex. Sprinkler heads have been received and
                replacements are currently underway.
        --Building Fire Protection System Survey and Descriptions.--This
                project provides a baseline on each building and provides
                the background necessary to standardize and centralize fire
                alarm systems and their monitoring. The task is expected to
                be completed in mid-February.
        --Design inter-connectivity of various life safety systems and
                emergency master control centers.--This is the immediate
                follow-on work to item b to provide a central monitoring
                center for all Capitol Hill life safety systems.
      --Design the replacement for existing fire pumps in the U.S. Capitol,
            Russell Senate Office Building, and Cannon and Longworth House
            Office Buildings--designs have been completed. Installation is
            following our procurement requirements.
      --Upgrade fire pump electrical feeds--Ford House Office Building--
            design was completed in May 1999. The upgrade is in the
            construction stage.
      --Emergency signs and lighting and egress study to establish way
            finding and directional/exit signage needs for each building's
            fire protection and life safety and occupancy loads throughout
            the complex. Exit signage is 95 percent complete. Egress
            analysis has been completed for the Hart Senate Office Building
            and Capitol Police Headquarters Building and is approximately
            70 percent completed for the rest of the Capitol complex.
            Should there be issues which require design, funds will be
            requested in fiscal year 2002.
      --Prepare requirements for a fire alarm system upgrade for ADA
            compliance and identify areas of refuge for each building and
            the requirements to meet National Fire Protection Association
            standards in these areas. Design estimated to be completed 6/
            00.
      --The design for the extension of sprinklers in Russell Rotunda,
            Committee and Caucus rooms, Basement and Sub-basement, and
            machine and control rooms, and attic spaces of Hart, the
            O'Neill Building, and the Ford House Office Building are
            scheduled for completion in 2001. Design of sprinkler systems
            for Capitol Power Plant administration building, Longworth,
            JMMB, Canine Facility at DC Village have been completed.
      --Upgrade fire protection systems.
      --Design of firefighter telephones in Hart Building. Completed 8/99.
      --Design of fire alarm system upgrade to Longworth. Completed 9/99.
      --Senate Employee Child Care Center--Design of smoke detectors and
            review of new facility fire systems. Completed 10/99.
      --Rayburn alarm manual pull station upgrade for travel distance and
            ADA--design in progress, estimate completion end of February
            2000.

        In August of 1999, Life Safety Support Services, Incorporated was
    contracted to investigate the conditions associated with the fire in
    the James Madison Building and the citations issued by the Office of
    Compliance. They were also tasked to survey the other buildings on
    Capitol Hill to determine whether similar conditions existed elsewhere.
    Their report was used as part of the response to the citations issued
    by the Office of Compliance. LSSI was also tasked to perform the
    baseline OSHA and EPA surveys mentioned previously. Their findings were
    consolidated and have been analyzed for prioritization using a risk
    assessment scheme. Corrective action plans are being developed for each
    finding. Those capable of being corrected in-house with existing
    resources have already been initiated. Those requiring funding will be
    submitted using the priorities previously discussed.
        Aerosol Monitoring and Analysis was contracted to perform a
    confined space survey at the Capitol Power Plant. They are currently
    tasked to provide a lead assessment at the Day Care Center at the Ford
    House Office Building and air sampling at the Rayburn House Office
    Building.
        Mantech, Incorporated has been tasked to provide asbestos and lead
    surveys in the Capitol and Longworth House Office Building. They have
    also been tasked to provide environmental services at 501 1st street
    and laboratory services for the Safety and Occupational Health Branch.
        ERM, Incorporated has been tasked to provide monitoring,
    evaluation, demolition, and removal of underground storage tanks.
        The agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers to provide architectural, engineering and
    construction support services as required. The agency will primarily
    use their services for survey and analysis support. Activities have
    included the removal and replacement of underground storage tanks
    (USTs) and surveys of the Supreme Court Building for asbestos.
        The Agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Public Health
    Service to provide safety, occupational health and industrial hygiene
    support services as required. The agency will use their services to
    supplement existing resources and to serve as a third party consultant
    on safety, occupational health or industrial hygiene related issues.
    Activities have included a comprehensive job hazard analysis for the
    Capitol Power Plant employees, confined space evaluation and training
    at the Power Plant, industrial hygiene services for issues at the Power
    Plant and projects at the Capitol, and Dirksen Senate Office Building.
        The AOC has an agreement with the Office of the Attending Physician
    (OAP) to provide medical support. The OAP currently coordinates
    physicals associated with the Medical Surveillance Plan and provides
    consultation services as requested.
        While these are positive steps to remedy some of our concerns,
    there is much more to be done. Projects need to be completed and/or
    current conditions within existing systems need to be corrected. Many
    time lines to complete projects currently remain extended due to lack
    of accessibility to occupied spaces where work would inconvenience
    Members, but the agency will actively work with the oversight
    committees, the Capitol Police Board, and other involved parties to
    develop methods of accelerating their completion. The agency is
    engaging systems once each zone is fully programmed, commissioned and
    ready to go on-line without affecting the integrity of the rest of the
    system.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        The agency's program utilizes National Fire Protection Association
    maintenance standards and manufacturer's guidance as tools for the
    superintendents to schedule the necessary maintenance and
    documentation. In addition, the Life Safety Program Division will
    conduct inspections of maintenance work being performed as well as
    relevant records. The AOC intends to comply with record keeping
    requirements by utilizing the Computer Assisted Facility Management
    (CAFM) system once it is fully implemented. Preventive maintenance is
    the key to longevity of the operating systems throughout the complex as
    well as the life safety systems currently in place and those being
    planned or installed at the present time.
        The agency is also working with other support offices to coordinate
    work areas, storage, and occupancy to maintain egress paths clear and
    safe as part of an overall safety maintenance program.

                                    PROJECTS

        Upgrades to the fire suppression systems for the food service areas
    that address today's cooking oils was requested and approved for fiscal
    year 2000. Contract award is expected third quarter.
        Smoke detectors are being placed in rooms within the Capitol as
    they are being renovated. Due to access problems (requiring
    displacement of Members while work is occurring) the fire alarm system
    upgrades in the Capitol are progressing at a much slower rate than
    anticipated or desired. A re-design of the new components will be
    conducted to zone the common public spaces separately to expedite fire
    alarm system coverage. Coordination with the Capitol master plan will
    also be conducted. Emergency Lighting in the Capitol has also been
    completed.
        A project impact analysis report procedure has been developed
    pertaining to the life safety system impacts on renovation/improvement
    projects such as the Capitol Dome and Dirksen Senate Office Building
    renovation. This is a newly implemented process, part of the project
    planning portion of our program, and indicates typical areas of
    consideration that will be reviewed with each project involving life
    safety elements. This tool will also be used when systems that support
    life safety are being modified such as water main replacements, room
    partitions installation, and electrical system work.
        Fixed fall protection systems for Capitol Building roofs have been
    designed and installation is scheduled for 2001.
        Fire alarm system upgrades associated with Y2K compliance and their
    certification per National Fire Protection Association standards has
    been estimated and will be conducted upon receipt of requested funding
    from GAO.
        A focused confined space program has been implemented in the
    Capitol Power Plant and its associated tunnels. This program will be
    expanded to include the remainder of Capitol Hill once a full confined
    space survey has been conducted. In addition, the AOC is working with
    the U.S. Capitol Police to ensure all entrants are appropriately
    trained.

                                    SUMMARY

        To meet the Life Safety Program Division goals set for the AOC,
    resources will be required to develop and implement programs and
    policies at the Agency and Jurisdictional levels. Several major
    elements have been identified, these include:
        Space must be identified to facilitate temporarily moving a group
    of Members and/or Committees to provide access to their suites and
    meeting rooms to allow renovation and modification including fire
    protection systems.
        Design and installation funding must be provided to correct issues
    identified in surveys conducted by the Life Safety Program Division,
    the Office of Compliance, and the Office of the Inspector General.
        Manpower resources are not available in-house to develop and
    implement programs and install, commission and maintain systems in an
    acceptable manner while continuing to meet our day-to-day operational
    requirements. External resources and the funds to provide continued
    support needs to be provided as requested in the fiscal year 2001
    budget.
        The development of the Environmental program and the analysis and
    survey requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency laws and
    regulations will require additional personnel and resources. Focus by
    the Life Safety Program Division has been on Safety related planning
    due to staffing limitations. Attention must be given to environmental
    matters because non-compliance with Environmental laws and regulations,
    can subject the Agency to citations and monetary fines. Enforcement by
    the EPA and the District of Columbia thus far has been limited.
    Announcement in June of 1999 of a response deadline for submittal of a
    CERCLA Preliminary Assessment indicates EPA's intention to begin a
    closer look at Capitol Hill Programs.

                          Appendix B.--Security Update

        The past year was a seminal year for security in the Capitol
    Complex. From the terrorist attacks both domestic and abroad, to the
    tragic deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, to the ever
    increasing threats to our facilities and the Leadership, a heightened
    awareness and emphasis on planning and implementing appropriate
    security measures dominates the focus of the Capitol Police Board, the
    U.S. Capitol Police and the AOC. The AOC concentrated on supporting the
    efforts of the Capitol Police and the other law enforcement entities to
    improve the security within the Capitol Complex.
        The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
    Act, 1999, (Public Law 105-277), provided additional funding in the
    amount of $106 million for the implementation of the proposed security
    improvements. Plans for the utilization of these funds were developed
    and submitted to the appropriate committees for approval. A complete
    obligation plan was submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations for review and approval. These approvals have been
    received. In moving forward with these plans in an expeditious manner,
    we are continuing to work closely with U.S. Capitol Police, Library of
    Congress Police, and the U.S. Supreme Court Police, to coordinate these
    significant efforts that are unprecedented in the history of the
    Capitol Complex.
        Other proposed short and long term projects include the Capitol
    Visitor Center. It is a key component of the systematic modernization
    and strengthening of the integrated security infrastructure program
    which has been presented to the Committee. In that regard, we received
    a substantial portion of the funding to construct the Capitol Visitor
    Center and received approval for the review and validation of the
    existing design and programmatic needs. The design development and
    construction document phases will follow after approval of outstanding
    issues raised in the validation phase.
        In early 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed
    with the Capitol Police that established the division of
    responsibilities, and the processes and procedures to be followed when
    developing and implementing security projects. This memorandum defined
    the processes and procedures important to the close working
    relationship between the two organizations.
        Briefly, the MOU assigns the responsibility for design,
    procurement, installation and maintenance of physical security barriers
    and other structures to the Architect of the Capitol while the Capitol
    Police's Physical Security Division is in charge of design,
    procurement, installation of security systems, including intrusion and
    duress alarms, x-ray, scanning and other security systems for
    facilities. My office continues to provide infrastructure support for
    the implementation of these systems. This has resulted in a strong
    working relationship between the two organizations.
        The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
    Act, 1999 transferred the responsibility for design, installation, and
    maintenance of security systems to protect the physical security of the
    buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress from the Architect of
    the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board to be carried out under the
    direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
    Representatives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the
    Senate. In response to this change, a separate MOU outlining the
    process, procedures and responsibilities for the improved security
    programs of the Library of Congress was entered into by this Office,
    the Capitol Police and the Library of Congress.
        In addition to the planning for the programmatic, personnel and
    physical security needs provided for in the Omnibus Consolidated and
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, funding was provided
    in fiscal year 1999 to conduct a comprehensive Master Plan that will
    present the options for providing the current and future facility needs
    of the Capitol Police and the participating law enforcement entities
    operating within the Capitol Complex. These include a new shared
    offsite delivery center where all deliveries to the Capitol Complex can
    be properly screened, a shared training facility that would support the
    collective training requirements of the police, a modern command and
    communications center that is capable of monitoring and administering
    the existing and proposed security systems in a centralized and
    coordinated manner, as well as other support facilities not currently
    or adequately provided. The Master Plan has been submitted to the
    appropriate committees for review and approval as part of the planning
    approval process to support the development of the proposed new
    security and police facilities.
        The 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, (Public
    Law 105-174) provided $20 million to improved perimeter security for
    Capitol Square, as well as the streets surrounding the Senate Office
    Buildings. The Capitol Police Board was directed to develop a specific
    plan for this project. The challenge is to sensitively integrate a
    sophisticated security program into the historic landscape of the
    Capitol Grounds and the fabric of the incomparable complex of buildings
    that grace Capitol Hill. The solution has been strongly influenced by
    the fact that the Capitol is the ``Peoples' Building'' and visitors
    must perceive it as such with reasonable access being provided.
    Perimeter fencing and other overly intrusive security measures have,
    therefore, been avoided.
        The primary elements of the plan include improved security at all
    entrances to Capitol Square through the use of a combination of high
    impact vehicle barriers that are police activated at the most critical
    locations, or card activated egress from parking related areas. These
    are to be used in conjunction with a continuous string of security
    bollards similar to those designed for and installed at the White
    House. These bollards would replace the concrete planters and sewer
    pipes that had been temporarily put in place in the 1980s. In addition,
    by integrating electronic and other security systems at each vehicular
    entrance, a continuously secure perimeter would be created largely
    internal to the original Fredrick Law Olmsted walls.
        The end result of the proposed changes will be significant
    improvements to both the security needs and appearance of Capitol
    Square. Approval for this plan was received from the Senate Committee
    on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration
    and construction documents will be completed in May 2000. At that time
    we will request approval to obligate funds for bidding the project. The
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration also specifically approved
    the Board's plan to improve the physical security elements protecting
    the Senate grounds and office buildings. Although this matter relates
    solely to the Senate, funding is included under our ``Perimeter
    Security'' project in the ``Capitol Grounds'' appropriation for this
    purpose. To resolve the security concerns, the Board recommended that
    landscape elements and bollards similar to those recommended for
    Capitol Square be used to replace the existing ``Jersey'' barriers,
    concrete planters and pipe sections. This solution maintains the
    necessary levels of security while softening the visual impact of these
    measures. The detailed construction plans and specifications have been
    completed and are being bid.
        The Capitol Police Board approved five security related projects
    that are included in the Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2001
    appropriation. These five security related projects as listed in our
    budget are as follows:

      --Infrastructure for Security Installations ($500,000), which
            provides the infrastructure accommodations to support the
            continued installation by the Capitol Police of door controls,
            alarms, cameras and other security devices throughout the
            Capitol Complex.
      --Security Project Support ($200,000) will provide this Office with
            technical staffing resources to coordinate and oversee the
            design and construction of capital improvements to be
            implemented by this Office that were funded in the Omnibus
            Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental and Appropriations Act,
            1999.
      --Off Site Delivery and Screening Center ($4,500,000) for the
            acquisition of land to build a new off site delivery and
            screening center, based on the findings in the Master Plan.
      --Design, Training Facility ($700,000) will provide for design of new
            training facilities based on the findings in the Master Plan.
      --Vehicle Maintenance Facility ($2,250,000) will provide for land
            acquisition and design of a new vehicle maintenance facility
            based on findings in the Master Plan.

           Appendix C.--AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 Achievements

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Congress passed the AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 in the
    Fiscal Year 1995 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-
    283, approved July 22, 1994. The law required that the AOC develop a
    human resources management program consistent with modern practices
    common to Federal and private sector programs.

                         HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM FOCUS

        Since April of 1997, the Human Resources Management Division
    (HRMD), under a new Director, has made the following areas a priority:
    customer service delivery; program/policy development; service delivery
    systems re-engineering; and personnel action and operational processing
    simplification.
        In order to accomplish these priorities as well as the daily human
    resource operational requirements, HRMD has, as a team, formed
    relationships across branches and functions to address these new
    challenges. The following information outlines HRMD's progress so far
    and identifies new directions for the coming year.

                           PROGRAM GUIDANCE COMPLETED

        The following program guidance was developed and distributed, with
    briefings provided to all Agency Supervisors:
        Training Program.--The training program was significantly
    revitalized and expanded to meet management and employee training
    needs. Specifically, we have:
      --Administered a wide range of training courses for AOC employees at
            all organizational levels and of varied disciplines.
      --Published a new training guidance handbook which has been provided
            to managers, supervisors and foremen during scheduled
            informational meetings. The handbook addresses the overall
            process for handling training requests and provides the
            following information: a detailed listing of training videos
            that are available for check-out or for viewing in the HRMD
            learning resources center by AOC staff; guidance on staff
            cross-training and job and non-job related training;
            instructions for completing on-site as well as off-site
            training requests; sample curricula and on-the-job training
            suggestions for a wide variety of trade occupations; and a copy
            of the General Services Administration's Facilities Management
            Training Center Catalogue.
      --Implemented an automated training system to capture all training
            activity and funds allocation.
        Architect's Mobility Program (AMP).--With the assistance of a cross
    jurisdictional workgroup, we have revamped the program guidelines. The
    program is designed to provide career growth opportunities for
    employees in lower-graded, career-limiting positions. The program is
    being implemented with 8 to 12 vacancies initially. This is to ensure
    that we are able to provide the necessary one-on-one assistance to the
    selecting official and the selected employee to develop a tailored
    training development plan. We provided informational sessions for
    employees and supervisors with detailed information about the Program,
    and operating procedures. Specific assistance has been given to
    employees on the application process, on completing the necessary
    forms, etc.
        Hazard Pay/Environmental Differential.--Guidance has been developed
    and provided for supervisors to use in requesting hazardous duty pay
    for appropriate work situations. The guidance provides for a number of
    steps to be taken by the supervisor prior to instructing employees to
    work in conditions that may be considered as hazardous duty. The
    guidelines provide for a health and safety review of the proposed
    working conditions, the applicable safety equipment, and other health/
    safety considerations. Once this review is completed, the supervisor
    will follow the procedures outlined to request from HRMD the authority
    to grant hazardous duty pay to employees involved in that specific work
    assignment.
        Temporary Limited Duty Assignments.--Guidance was developed and
    provided for use by supervisors when considering requests from
    employees for limited duty assignments, on a short-term basis, while
    recovering from a non-work related injury or illness. This information
    identifies the initial steps employees must follow and the
    documentation necessary to clearly substantiate a medical limitation.
    With specific medical documentation, the supervisor can make a
    determination whether or not a limited duty assignment is possible
    based on the employee's medical limitations and mission needs.
        Reissuance of Policy on the Administrative Work Week.--Based on
    numerous questions about what constitutes the work week and
    inconsistent application of policies in different segments of the
    agency, we reissued the AOC policy and standardized procedures to all
    employees.

         PROGRAMS AND POLICIES THAT ARE COMPLETED AND READY FOR UNION
                                  NEGOTIATIONS

        HRMD has completed the following program and policy guidance, which
    is awaiting negotiations with the Union. AFSCME Local 626 was elected
    by AOC employees representing laborers, custodial workers, various
    administrative support employees, and many employees of the U.S.
    Botanic Garden. As negotiations are completed for each policy, we will
    implement each of these initiatives. Our work on Program and Policy
    development is carried out in coordination and collaboration with Chief
    Employment Counsel and Chief Labor Relations Counsel. This ensures
    compliance with applicable laws and regulations including provisions of
    the Human Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act.
        Temporary Promotion Policy.--Completed the policy and procedures
    for supervisors to follow in proposing temporary promotions for
    employees. The policy provides for a uniform way of proposing,
    documenting, competing when necessary, and approving temporary
    promotions for AOC staff. Through this policy, Agency supervisors will
    be able to make a time-limited change of an employee's assignment, with
    a corresponding time-limited increase in pay.
        Work Detail Policy.--Completed the policy and procedures for
    supervisors to follow in proposing details (temporary work assignments)
    for their employees. The policy provides for a uniform way of
    proposing, documenting and approving details for AOC staff. Through
    this policy Agency supervisors will be able to temporarily assign an
    employee to a different position or set of duties, without a change in
    pay. The employee that is temporarily assigned to a different position
    or duties continues to officially occupy his/her position of record.
        Classification Appeals Policy.--Completed development of a
    classification appeal process for employees to use when the
    classification of their position (job title, series and/or grade) is in
    question. The process ensures that a thorough review and analysis of
    the position is completed; a specific report of findings is provided;
    and that HR staff meet to discuss the findings with the employee and
    the supervisor. The policy also provides for a third party (a neutral
    reviewer) to conduct the review in cases where this may be more
    appropriate.

                   ADDITIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Delegations of Authority.--In June 1997, the Human Resources office
    was granted full delegated authority to carry out the wide range of
    personnel actions necessary to support and carry out the mission of the
    Agency.
        Informational Briefings.--The Human Resource staff has been
    conducting informational briefings for groups of supervisors and
    managers in each jurisdiction. The briefings cover temporary limited
    duty assignments, hazardous duty pay/environmental differential,
    updates to the disciplinary process, the Architect's Mobility Program,
    the Training Handbook and other Human Resource program areas. The
    briefings are one method HRMD is using to develop an ongoing, cyclical
    dialogue with Agency supervisors to assure they understand the policies
    of the Agency and our intent to create standardized policies and
    procedures across all of our jurisdictions.
        Earlyout and Buyout Program for the Senate Restaurants.--Based on
    Congressional authorization, developed program guidance, operating
    procedures, informational materials and facilitated counseling sessions
    to help employees decide if they were interested in applying for a
    buyout and/or earlyout during November/December 1997. The overall
    process, which required about three months of staff effort, resulted in
    23 employees accepting the separation incentive. Through a second
    buyout program, in fiscal year 1998, an additional 17 employees
    accepted a buyout. These efforts have resulted in an estimated saving
    of $1 million per year for the Senate Restaurants. In developing the
    guidance and procedures to administer this authority, we benchmarked
    similar activities at other agencies and completed a successful
    programmatic review conducted by General Accounting Office (GAO) staff.
    Our experience with this authority is that it is an effective tool that
    holds much promise as a component for re-engineering other areas of the
    Agency.
        Enhancing Supervisory Skills Workshop.--With the assistance of a
    training consultant, we developed and administered this workshop for
    all AOC supervisors. The mandatory three-day training session addressed
    numerous topics with a focus on refreshing and enhancing supervisory
    skills. This workshop was the first of what will be a series of
    training opportunities aimed at improving the management and
    supervisory skills of AOC executives, managers, supervisors, foremen
    and assistant foremen. Major components of this workshop included
    segments to: enhance communications with employees; provide basic
    skills and the tools to effectively and promptly address conduct and
    discipline issues; address methods for providing positive reinforcement
    to staff; and, allowed an open discussion and review of pressing
    problems/issues.
        Streamlining the Discipline Process.--In an effort to improve the
    timely and fair handling of disciplinary cases, we examined AOC's
    current process and procedure to identify areas where processing time
    for these actions could be reduced, without changing the existing
    policy. A number of areas were identified where supervisors, HRMD, and
    the Hearing Officers could be more time efficient. To help reduce the
    time it takes to resolve a disciplinary case, we developed processing
    time standards. A decision was also made to obtain the services of
    independent contractors, skilled in handling hearings, to assume the
    duties that have been carried out by AOC managers. In doing this, we
    have added an additional degree of independent objectivity and
    consistency to the review of cases in addition to improving overall
    timeliness of handling a disciplinary action.
        Reengineered the Employment Suitability Process.--In order to
    ensure that new employees are suitable, from a security perspective,
    for employment with the agency, we reengineered the appointment and
    suitability review process. In conjunction with the U.S. Capitol
    Police, we now conduct a criminal history review prior to appointing
    all applicants within the agency. This changed process will also
    minimize the disruption to mission related work and will improve our
    overall business practices.
        Contract Administration Training Initiative.--In collaboration with
    the Procurement Division, HRMD led an initiative to promote the
    training of contract project officers. A comprehensive program plan and
    schedule was developed to facilitate a contract project officer and a
    contract administration course. The first phase of this training
    program has been completed. This initiative will enable the agency to
    more efficiently and professionally handle the administration of
    contracts for services that will be performed for AOC. The next
    training initiative (to be completed during fiscal year 2000) will
    address the open market and small purchase procurement process.
        Position Management Review.--In coordination with the Budget
    Office, HRMD implemented an Agency-wide process that ensures completion
    of a budget analysis and a position management review prior to a
    position being approved for recruitment. The position management
    review, completed by this office, focuses on: the need for the
    position; duplication of effort or overlapping of functions; the
    appropriate supervisory span of control; and staffing alternatives to
    ensure the position is filled at the lowest possible grade (salary)
    level.
        Position Classification Studies.--Efforts in this area have
    resulted in:

      --Completion of a number of position classification review studies
            including: raising the career ladder to the GS-13 level for
            Architect positions in the Architectural Division; developing
            GS-13 program manager positions in Engineering; and developing
            GS-13 level positions in the Information Resources Management
            Division.
      --Completion of a preliminary review of a random sample of Laborer
            positions in the House, Capitol and Senate Office Buildings.
            The review was completed in response to employee complaints
            that their positions should be paid at a higher level. We found
            that the majority of the positions were either properly graded
            or were over graded. A broader study to review the proper
            classification (title, job series and grade) of all Laborer and
            Custodial Workers will be necessary.
      --Completion of a review of all the positions in the Botanic Garden
            to determine the proper titles, series and grades of these
            positions.

        Organizational Studies.--An organizational management review was
    completed for the Superintendent of the Capitol, resulting in a
    reorganization with consolidation of a number of shops. An
    organizational realignment, to consolidate the grounds staffs at the
    Supreme Court and the Library of Congress under the AOC Landscape
    Architect, was also completed. Currently, we are working with the
    Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings, the Director of
    Engineering, and the Immediate Office of the Architect on a number of
    organizational issues. In addition, provided management and
    organizational analysis to establish the organization structure for the
    Financial Management System Program, the Capitol Visitor's Center
    Project Office, and the Life Safety Program Initiative.
        These efforts are part of our Strategic Planning and Organization
    Management efforts to develop sound, efficient, cost-effective staffing
    patterns for the Agency. This work will result in streamlined
    organizations with appropriate supervisor-to-employee staffing ratios.
    We also assess options that will facilitate the identification and
    development of centralized operations, and opportunities for multi-
    tasked job assignments and upward mobility positions.
        CSRS to FERS Conversion.--AOC had over 900 employees who were
    eligible to convert from CSRS to the FERS Retirement System during the
    open season that concluded on December 31, 1998. We had a comprehensive
    strategy in place to inform eligible employees of the process,
    considerations, financial implications, etc. HRMD provided one-on-one
    counseling and retirement comparisons to any interested employee who
    considered making the change. In addition, 79 employees participated in
    either FERS Transfer briefings and/or individual retirement transfer
    counseling sessions provided by HRMD.
        AOC Electronic Job Announcements.--A procedure to ``post'' all AOC
    job vacancies on the Office of Personnel Management Job Information
    Home Page (www.usajobs.opm.gov) was developed and implemented. AOC
    vacancies can now be found by any interested applicant ``surfing'' the
    net. In addition, to foster increased opportunities for all AOC staff,
    we implemented a policy of advertising jobs Agency-wide. This replaced
    the existing practice of advertising jobs primarily at the jurisdiction
    level. This will not only provide more opportunities for current AOC
    staff, but ensures consideration of a broader pool of candidates.
    Should we anticipate that there would not be a broad cross section of
    available internal candidates, the vacancies would be advertised to all
    sources (both within the AOC and to outside sources). Our goal is to
    ensure that vacancies are filled using a fair and open competitive
    procedure.
        Human Resources Newsletter.--Developed and have been publishing a
    Human Resources Newsletter, Employee Matters, as part of the AOC
    Shoptalk. The newsletter provides AOC employees with current Human
    Resource information, program initiatives, upcoming events, training
    information, etc.
        Human Resources Web HomePage.--A new resource for AOC employees who
    have access to the AOC intranet has been developed. Employees can now
    find out about Human Resources-related information and policies on-
    line. Since this is just the beginning of our venture into the website
    design, we will continue to modify and enhance the HomePage based on
    feedback. Currently, the HomePage contains:

      --Employee-wide notices issued by HRMD.
      --A complete HR staff roster with contact numbers and service areas.
      --The Uniform Policy and related documents.
      --Issues of Employee Matters.
      --Links to other sites such as TSP, Social Security and Federal Job
            Opportunities including AOC jobs.
      --A feedback link to E-Mail a message to HRMD-Link.
        In the near future, the site will be expanded to include:
      --Every current AOC human resources policy.
      --Mission-related information about HRMD and its branches, including
            each of the services and programs we provide.

                 HUMAN RESOURCES INITIATIVES CURRENTLY UNDERWAY

        AOC Year 1 Reengineering Plan using Buyouts and Earlyouts.--Based
    on Congressional authorization, we developed program guidance,
    operating procedures, and informational materials. We conducted 20
    employee group briefings and provided 195 one-on-one retirement/
    resignation counseling sessions to assist employees interested in
    applying for a buyout and/or earlyout during the application window of
    June 1-August 6, 1999. We received and approved 73 buyout requests. Our
    plan provides for the filling of 72 of the vacancies (46 positions are
    being reengineered to be advertised and filled as various needed
    disciplines; 26 positions will be filled in-kind--the position to be
    filled will be the same type of position as was vacated).
        AOC Year 2 Reengineering Plan using Buyouts and Earlyouts.--A
    proposal will be submitted in January-February 2000, for Congressional
    authorization.
        Performance Evaluation System (PES).--A plan was developed and
    implemented to review and make necessary program and policy changes to
    revamp the AOC PES. Focus groups comprised of supervisors, foremen,
    employees and managers were used to assist in the initial phase of the
    review. A cross jurisdictional workgroup of AOC staff, including Union
    representation, worked with HRMD staff to help develop proposals for
    necessary changes to revamp the system. A number of program and policy
    enhancements are being adopted which will provide for a more usable
    system. The revamped PES program is in the final review process. The
    implementation plan provides for union negotiations, approval of the
    final policy by the Architect, and implementation Agency-wide. Program
    implementation is projected during the February-March 2000 time frame.
        Awards Program.--An awards policy/program to establish a
    comprehensive incentives and recognition program, including provisions
    to pilot monetary and time off awards is being developed. Providing an
    incentive system, that recognizes performance, productivity and
    exceptional employee contributions toward fulfilling our mission, will
    serve to reinforce service excellence, professionalism, creativity, and
    teamwork AOC-wide. A draft Agency policy has been reviewed by senior
    Agency managers and suggested revisions are being made. Project
    completing a final proposal for management review by March-April 2000.
    (Prior to implementation, necessary union negotiations will need to be
    completed).
        AOC Pay Flexibilities Policy.--We have completed a draft proposal
    for several pay flexibilities--Retention Allowances, Recruitment
    Bonuses, and Superior Qualifications Appointments. These pay
    flexibilities will provide the option for paying a monetary incentive
    to; retain a high quality employee that may be looking to leave the
    Agency; better attract high quality candidates during the Agency's
    recruitment process; and grant a higher step of a grade in appointing a
    uniquely skilled individual to fill a critical position. A draft Agency
    policy has been reviewed by senior Agency managers and suggested
    revisions are being made. Project completing a final proposal for
    management review by late April-May 2000. (Prior to implementation,
    necessary union negotiations will need to be completed).
        Employee Safety and Protection.--In collaboration with the AOC
    Health and Safety Office, HRMD has been actively addressing employee
    safety and protection in the workplace. We developed and implemented
    (with union concurrence) an employee uniform policy in the Senate
    Office Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the Botanic Gardens and
    the Capitol Grounds. We are also working to ensure that we have program
    and policy guidance to address other employee personal protection
    issues such as protective clothing, eye protection, safety shoes, etc.,
    to further support AOC health, safety, and training initiatives.
        Review of all Laborer and Custodial Worker Positions.--A study to
    review the proper classification (title, job series and grade) of all
    Laborer and Custodial Workers was initiated in mid January 2000 and is
    expected to take several months for completion. The study is in
    response to employees complaints that positions are not properly
    classified and as a result of a previously completed review of a random
    sample of positions in the House, Capitol and Senate Office Buildings.
        Human Resources Process/Systems Reengineering.--In the same fashion
    that the discipline process was streamlined to reduce processing time,
    we are systematically reviewing and revamping other HR processes and
    procedures so they are more responsive to management and employee
    needs. Even though this requires us to make a large investment of time,
    addressing these initiatives and the business of modernizing AOC's
    Human Resources programs are being approached with a great degree of
    enthusiasm by the HRMD staff. Our current focus is the re-engineering
    of the operating processes and procedures followed by the Employment
    and Services Branch. Staff workgroups are systematically analyze,
    modernize, simplify and implement new ways of doing business in a
    number of areas including: recruitment, pay and benefits processing,
    retirement counseling and program administration, health and life
    benefits administration, etc. A few examples of accomplishments to date
    include:

      --Development and implementation of a Human Resources Staff
            Competency Development Model. The model provides a road map for
            the professional, technical, and career development of the HR
            staff.
      --A pilot employee benefits group has been formed to provide more
            responsive, focused services tailored to individual employee
            needs. The group provides one-on-one services in retirement
            counseling, health and life benefits, thrift savings, and
            resolution of other employee needs.
      --An employee suitability procedure was revamped to ensure a more
            timely responsive review of employment suitability for
            prospective employees and contractors. The process provides for
            close coordination of employee suitability with the U.S.
            Capitol Police.
      --A team was identified to provide continuous assistance to Agency
            managers in addressing ongoing operational issues. Through
            regular participation in jurisdictional staff meetings or
            working with individual or groups of employees the team.
      --Developed and implemented two informational/communications tools to
            provide guidance to employees and to supervisors on emerging
            issues. Tools Of The Trade are guidance documents for managers
            and supervisors on how to handle specific program, policy or
            operational issues. HR Bulletins are informational issuances to
            all employees regarding important upcoming activities/events.

        Labor Management Relations and Negotiations.--With the election of
    a union to represent approximately one-third of the Agency's workforce,
    HRMD now has additional program responsibilities to carry out in
    collaboration with the Labor Relations Attorney. HRMD is working with a
    wide variety and a significant number of day-to-day union issues as
    well as serving on the management negotiation team. They regularly
    participate in meetings with union officials to address specific issues
    or concerns and to provide information. The staff is devoting a
    considerable amount of time to carry out negotiations with the union on
    a labor-management contract as well as on specific policy issues.
        Supervisor and Employee Handbooks.--Under two separate initiatives,
    we are developing a Supervisory Handbook for Managing Human Resources
    and an AOC Employee Handbook. Both publications are designed to provide
    both supervisors and employees with relevant and accurate AOC policies,
    procedures, processes, programs, and benefits.
        Workers' Compensation Program.--HRMD has initiated a concerted
    effort to develop a comprehensive program to address the high workers'
    compensation costs being incurred by the Agency. We have developed a
    Three-Year Strategic Plan with goals of: returning claimants to work
    following an injury; proactively managing cases and medical care; and
    containing costs and reducing lost work time. Some of our
    accomplishments to date include:

      --Implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of
            the Attending Physician to provide medical consultation in
            connection with work-related injuries/illnesses;
      --A limited duty program that can provide limited duty to every
            partially disabled employee injured on the job;
      --Development and implementation of a Workers' Compensation Tracking
            System to provide managers, supervisors, the Health and Safety
            Office, the attending Physicians's Office and the Human
            Resources Office with immediate access to new injury cases as
            they occur, for performing mishap investigations, generating
            injury reports, and for identifying and tracking injury trends.
      --Completed a review of 396 workers' compensation claims, implemented
            48 corrective actions, returned 93 employees to work in limited
            duty work assignments, returned 14 employees to full duty from
            our short term and long term rolls, and canceled 2 employees'
            ineligible cases.
      --Working with the Office of Workers Compensation, we completed a
            review of 101 long-term cases and have requested their
            intervention in 20 cases for possible rehabilitation, re-
            employment or reduction of benefits.
      --Completed detailed research into a number of potentially fraudulent
            cases. Based on our findings, we have referred and requested a
            complete administrative review of 15 workers compensation cases
            by the Department of Labor.

        We will continue to develop specific initiatives, in conjunction
    with the AOC Health and Safety Office and with the Attending
    Physician's Office, to systematically address each aspect of workers'
    compensation, to provide for a proactive return to work program and to
    aggressively pursue cases of potential fraudulent claims.
        Forging New Business Relationships.--HRMD has been working with
    several organizations across the campus:

      --The U.S. Capitol Police to establish joint efforts to successfully
            and safely deal with potential workplace issues;
      --The Office of the Attending Physician and the Occupational Health
            and Safety staff to develop better program linkages with regard
            to workers compensation, training and other program areas; and
      --Participating in initial discussions with the Sergeant at Arms and
            the Chief Administrative Officer on potential areas for mutual
            cooperation.

        The staff is actively participating on several executive agency
    forums: a member of the Small and Independent Federal Agencies
    Personnel Group; a member of the Office of Personnel Management's Human
    Resource Accountability Workgroup; participate in the Classification
    and Compensation Society forums; and are actively involved in the
    Federal Safety and Health Council.

                      UPCOMING HUMAN RESOURCES INITIATIVES

        This is a brief summary of HRMD initiatives on the horizon:
        Leave Administration.--Guidance and instructions being used by the
    various jurisdictions are being collected in an effort to assess how
    leave is administered across the AOC. We want to look at options for
    developing more standard policies and procedures for handling the
    various aspects of leave administration including:
      --Process for requesting and approving leave (annual, sick, without
            pay, etc.).
      --Process for annotating and documenting tardiness.
      --Process for annotating, documenting and initiating action to
            address AWOL situations.

        As an initial effort, based on initial findings HRMD is developing
    several Tools Of The Trade for managers and supervisors to address
    appropriate documentation and use of sick leave and tardiness. A
    comprehensive review and update of the Agency policy will be planned as
    a future program initiative.
        Records Management.--HRMD is reviewing the information AOC
    organizations currently maintain about the employment and conduct of
    individual employees with the goal of developing guidelines to
    standardize these practices. Individual supervisors and managers may
    find it convenient to maintain unofficial personnel records containing
    information about their employees for purposes of initiating personnel
    actions, tracking leave usage, and recommending discipline. The
    information maintained might duplicate some of that in the employee's
    Official Personnel Folder, but may include copies of additional
    material such as employee's counseling, incident reports, and
    supervisory notes. In order to provide consistency in the content and
    manner in which employee information is kept, HRMD will develop
    guidelines to govern what documentation may and may not be maintained,
    as well as general information on the employee's right to review it.
        Update and Revamp the AOC Conduct and Discipline Policy.--The AOC
    operating process and procedures for handling conduct and discipline
    matters will be reviewed and updated. The existing process is rather
    cumbersome and can be very time intensive. The necessary procedural
    steps in administering the disciplinary process will be streamlined.
        A Comprehensive Wage and Pay Administration and Hours of Duty
    Policy.--In addition to current work efforts on the AOC's Pay
    Flexibilities Policy, HRMD will look into developing a more uniform,
    comprehensive, way of addressing wage and pay matters to cover holiday
    pay, overtime, tours of duty, etc. This effort will standardize pay
    administration and work scheduling across the Agency and provide clear
    operating guidelines for AOC supervisors to follow.
        Human Resources Management Information System.--Based on program
    and management needs, research is needed to actively pursue
    modernization of HR information management systems. The lack of an
    automated system results in very labor intensive efforts on behalf of
    Agency managers, administrative staff, the HR staff, and the
    Information Resources Management staff in completing day-to-day
    business transactions. An automated system would not only greatly
    reduce the necessary paperwork, but would also reduce the processing
    time for personnel actions and would facilitate generation of necessary
    Agency and Oversight Committees' reports. Such a system would be able
    to provide for: on-demand, accurate, management reports for program
    analysis; processing of personnel actions; personnel forms; position
    classification process; simple, protected, employee access to their
    personal pay, benefits, retirement, insurance, and other employment
    related information.
        Human Resources Process/Systems Reengineering.--The staff will
    continue to reengineer, streamline and revamp our operating processes
    and procedures with the goals of reducing processing time and providing
    more responsive customer services. Following the model we used in the
    conduct and discipline process (previously addressed in this report),
    we will complete a process to streamline and reengineer operating
    processes and procedures in the Employment and Services Branch and then
    replicate the model in the Classification and Pay Administration
    Branch, the Management and Employee Relations Branch, and the Employee
    Development and Communications Branch.
        Our organizational goal is to be more responsive in meeting the
    needs of our AOC customers, and provide timely, cost-effective HR
    services. We envision Human Resources as a proactive partner and
    resource in advancing the AOC mission of being an innovative and
    efficient team dedicated to service excellence and to preserving,
    maintaining and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.

    Appendix D.--Initiatives Regarding the Congressional Accountability Act

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Enacted in 1996, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the
    CAA) affords all AOC employees, and their union representatives a
    process by which to present allegations regarding workplace matters
    before the independent Office of Compliance. In addition, the CAA
    requires the Office of Compliance General Counsel to conduct complex-
    wide inspections to guarantee workplace safety and health.

                   COMPLAINT PROCESS IN DISCRIMINATION CASES

        An employee who wishes to allege violations of the CAA may request
    counseling and mediation from the Office of Compliance. Individuals who
    wish to file such requests need not put in writing, or prove, any
    allegations during formal counseling, mediation or before entering the
    formal litigation process. At mediation the AOC must be ready to
    respond to any employment-related matters, including discrimination,
    wage and hour and family leave issues, or other workplace issues,
    without regard to the legal merits of claims. The CAA and the Office of
    Compliance procedural rules require that all mediation and formal
    hearing proceedings are strictly confidential and require parties to
    sign agreements to that effect.
        After the mediation period, a complainant or a designated
    representative may initiate the litigation process by filing a formal
    complaint in the Office of Compliance or a civil action in Federal
    Court. (The CAA requires that Formal Complaint cases be kept
    confidential. On the other hand, Federal court cases are not
    confidential.) There are currently 14 active district court cases
    naming the AOC as the defendant. In the 15 cases in which courts have
    ruled, the AOC has received favorable rulings, including dismissals.

                         DISCRIMINATION CASE STATISTICS

        Based on the official figures provided by the Office of Compliance
    (the OC) for calendar year 1999, individuals filed 311 requests for
    counseling naming the AOC as the respondent employing office. (The
    filing of such requests is a pre-requisite to filing a Request for
    Mediation upon which the OC first informs the AOC of the existence of a
    complaint from an employee.) The OC only discloses numerical statistics
    in this area and has not authorized the release of any information in
    these cases. The Office of Compliance proceedings concerning these
    requests by law are strictly confidential. As stated above, 14 active
    cases are currently pending in federal court.

              OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROVISIONS OF THE CAA

        Section 215 of the CAA directs the Office of Compliance General
    Counsel to inspect any area or activity within the jurisdiction of
    employing offices, including all of the buildings within the AOC's
    jurisdiction with respect to compliance with occupational safety and
    health standards. (As of January 1998, the Library of Congress,
    separate and apart from the AOC, is covered by this provision regarding
    its own activities.) The OC General Counsel conducts inspections of all
    such locations at least once every Congress, but also whenever an
    employee or an employee representative requests an inspection.
        The CAA empowers the General Counsel to issue a citation or notice
    when he has reason to believe that a violation of Section 215 of the
    CAA has occurred. The General Counsel's issuance of a citation or
    notice by itself does not establish that there has been a violation of
    the CAA. If the General Counsel issues a complaint against an employing
    office in the CAA process, an independent hearing officer conducts a
    hearing at which the OC General Counsel and the employing office may
    present arguments as to whether the facilities or work practices are in
    compliance with the law. A hearing officer's decision may be appealed
    to the OC Board of Directors and then to the Federal Circuit Court of
    Appeals.
        Beginning in January 2000 the OC General Counsel is conducting a
    periodic inspection of the Capitol Hill complex and other facilities
    under the jurisdiction of the AOC. Also, in calendar year 1999, in 19
    cases the OC General Counsel has conducted individually requested
    inspections of certain facilities. These inspections may be narrowly
    focused on one location or activity or involve facilities and
    activities across the Capitol Hill complex, such as the ongoing fire
    safety inspections of all of the buildings under AOC jurisdiction,
    mentioned below. The AOC has been fully cooperative in the inspection
    process and has responded to each issue raised.
        In late April 1999, the General Counsel cited the AOC for the lack
    of roof fall protections on the Capitol Building and for failing to
    test for the Legionella bacteria at the frequency that he felt
    desirable in the East Towers of the Capitol Power Plant. With regard to
    the first issue, the AOC was well underway with its plan to provide for
    fall protection, not only on the Capitol Building, but on all of the
    buildings in the complex. In the second matter, the AOC had already
    begun its seasonal testing for the Legionella bacteria at the East
    Towers when the citation was issued. At the suggestion of the OC
    General Counsel, the testing is now done on a weekly basis. All tests
    at all the cooling towers of the Capitol Power Plant have been
    negative.
        In July 1999, citations were issued concerning inspection and
    maintenance of certain electrical components of the system in the James
    Madison Memorial Building of the Library of Congress. Pursuant to the
    recommended abatements in the citations, the AOC conducted tests and
    maintenance of the subject electrical switchgear, as well as the
    switchgear throughout the building. The AOC also initiated a training
    program to ensure that safe electrical practices, including the de-
    energizing of electrical lines, as necessary, are followed. Finally,
    the AOC established a procedure to notify the Library police and others
    in writing when any part of an alarm system is out of service for
    repairs. These actions abated the alleged violations noted in the
    issued citations. Beyond that, the AOC has initiated the process for
    designing and, as funding permits, installing new switchgear equipment
    throughout the Madison Building.
        Pursuant to several January 1999 requests for inspection by AOC and
    Library of Congress union representatives, the Office of Compliance is
    continuing to conduct inspections of all the buildings in the Capitol
    complex regarding fire safety. As discussed elsewhere, even before
    these inspections began, the AOC had ongoing efforts to identify and
    address the issues concerning fire safety in buildings under its
    jurisdiction and care.

             Appendix E.--Initiatives in Labor-Management Relations

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Provisions under the Congressional Accountability Act, Public Law
    104-1 (CAA), afford all eligible AOC employees the right to choose an
    exclusive representative to engage in collective bargaining with
    Employing Offices. Since the CAA's passage, seven different groups of
    AOC employees have exercised this right. One representation petition is
    currently pending for an additional proposed unit of Masons employed at
    the AOC. The following discussion describes labor-management relations
    activities that have taken place over the past three years.

                              FORMATION OF UNIONS

        In August, 1997, the first bargaining unit at the Architect of the
    Capitol (AOC) was established. Approximately 600 laborers, custodians
    and other occupations were organized by AFSCME Council 26, Local 626,
    which was certified by the Office of Compliance as the first exclusive
    bargaining agent for AOC employees.
        In November, 1998, AFSCME Council 26, Local 626 was certified by
    the Office of Compliance as the exclusive representative of a unit of
    production and maintenance employees at the United States Botanic
    Garden.
        On January 13, 1999, Plumbers Local Union No. 5, United Association
    of Journeyman and Apprentices et al. was certified as the exclusive
    bargaining agent, by the Office of Compliance, for a unit of plumbers
    employed by the AOC's Construction Management Division. The AOC and
    Plumbers Local 5 have met twice to discuss potential contract issues.
    To date, no proposals have been presented for bargaining.
        On August 17, 1999, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
    Workers, Local 26, was certified by the Office of Compliance as the
    exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of journeyman electricians
    employed by the Construction Management Division.
        On October 14, 1999, AFSCME Local 626 was certified by the Office
    of Compliance as the exclusive representative of laborers and coal
    loaders at the Capitol Power Plant. This is an addition to the existing
    unit consisting of other laborers and custodial workers in the House
    and Senate Office Buildings and the Capitol.
        On October 16, 1999, Sheet Metal Workers' International
    Association, Local Union No. 100 was certified by the Office of
    Compliance as the exclusive representative of sheet metal workers
    employed by the Construction Management Division of the AOC.
        On November 15, 1999, the Washington D.C. Regional Council of
    Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America was
    certified by the Office of Compliance as the exclusive representative
    of carpenters employee by the Construction Management Division of the
    AOC.

                               UNION NEGOTIATIONS

        The AOC and AFSCME Local 626 have negotiated the following
    agreements:
      --Uniforms for Senate Office Buildings and Capitol Building employees
      --Time Clocks for Capitol building employees
      --Official time and the Number of Designated Union Officials
      --Dues deduction
      --Architect's Mobility Program
      --Overtime assignments at the Botanic Garden
        Several articles of the Master Contract
      --Ground Rules for Master Contract Negotiations.
      --Negotiability issues for Master Contract Negotiations
      --Reassignments for House, Senate and Capitol personnel
      --Buy-Out, Early Retirement
      --Transfer of Custodial Employees
      --Uniforms for U.S. Botanic Garden Employees
        To date, negotiations have not begun with the other certified Union
    representatives.

                     LABOR-RELATIONS MEETINGS/NEGOTIATIONS

        At least 60 labor-management meetings have been held during the
    past year to discuss various issues, including staffing, time and
    attendance, training opportunities, change in work assignments,
    discipline, health and safety.

                          MASTER CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

        Collective bargaining between AFSCME Local 626 and the AOC began on
    July 21, 1999 to negotiate the first comprehensive master contract
    agreement between the AOC and a labor organization. On September 20,
    1999, negotiations were completed with 4 issues remaining, yet to be
    resolved. Parties have agreed to meet on January 28, 1999 to resolve
    these final issues so that an agreement may be implemented by early
    Spring.

                     ALLEGATIONS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

        During the past three years, twenty-seven unfair labor practice
    charges were filed by various organizations representing AOC employees.
    Seventeen were withdrawn, six were dismissed, and a settlement was
    reached in one case involving the reassignment of employees. One charge
    involving dues deductions was investigated by the Office of Compliance
    and a complaint was issued. The AOC was found to be in violation and
    required to post the remedial Order. Another charge alleging violations
    based on, inter alia, the denial of official time to a union
    representative is under investigation. A separate charge, filed by the
    Electrical workers' union (IBEW, Local 26), alleges the discriminatory
    lay-off of an employee due to his union activities. That charge
    currently is under investigation.

          Appendix F.--Status of Selected Capital Improvement Projects

    U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory Renovation

        The contract for the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden
    Conservatory was awarded to The Clark Construction Group, Inc., of
    Bethesda, Maryland, in September 1998. The company was issued a Notice
    to Proceed in the same month and extensive work presently underway is
    clearly visible to passers-by. The renovation and reconstruction of the
    1933 Conservatory will totally replace and modernize its building
    systems while retaining its architectural character. The initial award
    is for the renovation of the structure (including the interior
    landscapes) and installation of water treatment, security and
    environmental control systems. The staff of the U.S. Botanic Garden
    will install the plant exhibits in each house of the Conservatory.

    Roof Fall Protection Program

        The objective of this complex-wide program is the design and
    installation of roof protection systems on all buildings as required to
    comply with OSHA safety standards. Presently 100 percent design is
    complete for the U.S. Capitol, Senate Office Buildings, House Office
    Buildings, Library of Congress Buildings, Botanic Garden Growing
    Facility and the Capitol Power Plant. Systems for the U.S. Capitol dome
    and 501 First Street are being designed under separate projects. The
    U.S. Capitol has modified railings, walkways and flagpole access
    conditions by reprogrammed funds. Work on flagpole access at the
    Capitol and the Russell Senate Office Building are in progress.
    Construction contracts have been awarded for the fabrication and
    installation of complete fall protection systems for the Longworth
    Building, U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters and Webster Hall. The
    balance of the program awaits construction funding .

    Dome Rehabilitation

        The 135-year-old Capitol Dome is undergoing a rehabilitation to
    ensure its protection and preservation into the next century.
    Construction phasing was determined early in 1998; several studies and
    pilot projects and an interim master plan associated with the first
    phase were also completed, paving the way for the preparation of
    construction documents and the issuance of an Invitation for Bid. The
    phase one construction contract was awarded to The Aulson Company of
    Methuen, Massachusetts, on January 11, 1999, and the work has proceeded
    well. It is approximately 65 percent complete with the current phase of
    work scheduled to end in late April 2000. Temporary repairs to the
    guttering systems, resealing of exterior joints and painting areas of
    bare metal will be added to this phase to prepare the Dome for a hiatus
    in rehabilitation. This work may extend the contractor's presence on
    the site through mid-summer 2000, but should not defer removal of the
    Rotunda protective netting prior to the end of April.
        The final review submission of the design documents for phase two
    has been reviewed by the staff and comments have been issued to the
    consulting team for their completion by late February 2000. The hiatus
    in construction will allow for any additional defects discovered in the
    completion of Phase I to be incorporated into the documents prior to
    bidding. Funding for phase two will be requested in fiscal year 2002
    and is expected to be completed in calendar year 2005.

    Library of Congress Book Storage Modules

        Work has begun on the first of a series of book storage modules to
    be built for the Library of Congress on 100 acres of land at Ft. Meade,
    Maryland, under jurisdiction of the Architect. The contract for
    construction of LOC Book Storage Module 1 and an adjacent office
    component, as well as for initial site preparation and development
    work, was awarded on April 12, 1999. The first storage module (of an
    anticipated total of 13) is 8,000 square feet, and the office component
    is 5,000 square feet exclusive of mechanical equipment space.
    Construction began August 3, 1999 and is expected to be completed in
    the late fall of 2000. Future modules, not tied to additional office
    components, may be larger in size.

    Underground Storage Tanks

        The Architect complied with the December 22, 1998 temporary closure
    deadline mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
    December 22, 1999 deadline for addressing all relative environmental
    concerns. The work was accomplished utilizing a combination of U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers' contractors, and two other private
    contractors. A replacement gasoline tank and dispensing equipment is
    still in planning. The design should be completed by March 1, 1999.
    Installation will occur as soon as all procurement issues are settled.

      Appendix G.--Report on Architect of the Capitol Year 2000 Readiness

        The Year 2000 Computing Crisis (Y2k) project at the office of the
    Architect of the Capitol was initiated in response to the growing
    awareness of the potential computing problems associated with the
    change from the year 1999 to 2000. In preparing for Y2k risks, the AoC
    implemented the wide range of guidelines established by the General
    Accounting Office (GAO).
        The project at AoC was initiated with the major focus on
    Information Technology systems, including: the Unisys mainframe
    supporting the accounting systems, the network environment supporting
    office automation and internal mail, the Senate Restaurants financial
    systems, and other critical systems. As awareness of Y2k's potential
    impacts grew, so grew the responsibility of the Y2k project to include
    building infrastructure systems including: power, elevators, climate
    control, and the reliance on external utility providers. With this
    expansion of coverage, came the additional responsibility of
    coordinating the building infrastructure Y2k activities of all
    legislative organizations. These common activities included: sharing
    information about AoC compliance activities, sharing information from
    the external utilities, Day-1 planning, and Day-1 communications. The
    diligence and determination of the AoC Y2k team ensured the success of
    AoC's Y2k compliance.

    Project Analysis

        The Y2k project was initiated in early 1997 when AoC's Office of
    Information Resources Management (OIRM) established a Y2k planning
    committee. The committee included representatives from the various
    disciplines in order to elevate the awareness of the project throughout
    the agency. The committee performed assessments of all AoC operations
    and developed a list of core business processes, highlighting those
    that had one or more components subject to Y2k risks. The original
    mission critical systems list contained 15 systems. Each system owner
    was then tasked with analyzing the system to determine the level of
    risk and the cost and complexity of correcting deficiencies. As the
    AoC's Y2k awareness expanded, and with guidance from GAO, the number of
    mission critical systems grew to 42.
        As the leader of the AoC Y2k project team, the Director of OIRM was
    responsible for monitoring, implementing, and reporting on AoC's
    advancement toward Y2k compliance. The AoC Y2k project team provided
    system owners with guidance about compliance and worked with vendors
    and owners to ensure that all remediation activity was fully supported
    and appropriate to the associated level of risk. Concurrent with system
    upgrades, the AoC Y2k project team developed contingency plans for such
    diverse systems as electric power, water supply, building climate
    control, Botanic Garden climate control, Senate Restaurant operations,
    and more. These contingency plans along with validation checklists were
    documented in the AoC's Contingency & Day-1 Plan.
        As the year 2000 approached and each legislative organization
    continued to develop its own Y2k plans, the need for inter-agency
    communication became obvious because many of the Y2k risks that the AoC
    was planning for were also being planned for by other legislative
    agencies. In February 1999, the Director of AoC's OIRM initiated and
    led the Legislative Branch Y2k Coordination Group (Group) which had
    participation from all 13 legislative organizations and the Supreme
    Court Marshal's office. The Group came to consensus on a number of
    planning assumptions, common planning horizons, and development of an
    inter-agency critical incident command center (CICC). These were all
    documented in the Group's Day-1 Guide which was distributed to each
    organization and to congressional leadership. A November 4 table-top
    exercise tested the effectiveness of the CICC and prepared the
    participants for possible decision-making scenarios that Y2k failures
    could have produced.
        No additional funds were expended to develop the AoC control center
    or the CICC. All hardware and software to support the centers was
    borrowed from participating organizations and the expertise for
    developing the communications and system validations were provided by
    AoC and other Legislative branch agencies.
    Project Results
        Due to detailed planning, extensive renovations, and good
    communications, the result of the Y2k project at the AoC was a fully
    successful rollover from 1999 to 2000. The systems under AoC
    responsibility were monitored prior to, during, and after the year
    rollover, and no problems were reported either internally or from
    external providers.
        Communication flowed as it was designed. As information about
    systems was gathered in the buildings and from the utilities, it was
    reported to the AoC command center, who in turn shared this with the
    other jurisdictions, and with the CICC. The CICC provided a great forum
    for sharing concerns of the legislative organizations, and ensured that
    in the event of a Y2k disruption, the right people would have been
    available to make the appropriate decision. Due to the overwhelmingly
    positive results of the system validations on January 1, 2000, the AoC
    control center and the CICC were decommissioned in the early morning
    hours. Other internal AoC system validations continued during the day,
    but no problems were reported or documented.
        The Legislative branch group was a great success in cooperative
    planning development. All participants were able to express the views
    of their organization, and consensus reaching was attempted in a
    cooperative and positive manner. It is a good model for other projects
    that have Capitol complex-wide implications. The Sergeant at Arms of
    the U.S. House of Representatives has expressed interest in
    implementing a similar ``CICC-type'' group for such events as the State
    of the Union Address and the Presidential Inauguration.

             Appendix H.--Financial Management System Improvements

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The AoC is pursuing the upgrading and integration of information
    systems and business practices in order to provide a business
    environment that provides timely access to reliable information.
    Currently, AoC's various systems do not share information or common
    data definitions. The implementation of a new Financial Management
    System (FMS) and the integration of other systems with FMS will be a
    major step towards AoC's system integration goal. The FMS
    implementation will also lead to the AoC's first preparation and audit
    of financial statements. These goals are fully consistent with the
    Vision Statement of the Legislative Branch Financial Manager's Council,
    which the agency has adopted. The AoC is currently in the beginning
    stages of the FMS implementation.
        The AoC requires a new financial system that is compliant with
    Federal standards, easily integrated with other systems, provides
    timely and accurate information and contains electronic workflow
    capabilities. The new core financial system must be tightly integrated
    with the inventory system, the facilities management system (CAFM), the
    human resources system, and the project tracking system. The
    integration of the CAFM system with the core financial system is a
    critical goal for the AoC in order to perform proper cost accounting
    and analysis of the facilities management activities (as recommended in
    a House Inspector General report dated 9/1/98). This goal requires the
    new financial system to operate on a modern easily integratable
    technical platform and provide extra user defined data elements for
    capturing AoC unique information required for linking the systems (such
    as work order number).
        The new Financial Management System, which will be compliant with
    all Federal standards, will be implemented in phases. The first phase
    will be the implementation of the Standard General Ledger, and
    interfaces with the current accounting system and payroll system.
    Subsequent phases will include the implementation of other modules of
    the core system (such as budget execution, purchasing, accounts
    payable), and the gradual phase out of the current financial system.
    Also included in subsequent phases is the integration of the facility
    management system (CAFM), the implementation and integration of a more
    robust project tracking system, the implementation of a contracting
    procurement module, and the implementation of inventory and fixed
    assets modules. The human resources system will also be enhanced to
    provide the financial system with more detailed labor information for
    performing cost accounting.
        In order to ensure all the proper steps are taken in the
    procurement and implementation of a new system, and to ensure continued
    support from top management, the AoC has organized a steering committee
    made up of executives from various AoC user groups and financial system
    executives from GAO, the LOC and other Legislative Branch agencies. The
    purpose of the committee is to provide advice and feedback regarding
    the implementation of a new financial management system and to provide
    a forum for addressing high level project issues.
        The Legislative Branch Financial Manager's Council (LBFMC) is
    currently pursuing an initiative to have all Legislative Branch
    agencies eventually implement the same financial management software.
    The AoC's phased approach to implementing FMS through a cross-servicing
    arrangement with another Federal agency is consistent with this LBFMC
    initiative. In addition, the AoC is prepared to participate in the
    LBFMC proposed Concept of Operations Study.
        Pending approval of fiscal year 2001 funding, a pro forma audit of
    the fiscal year 2001 financial statements will be performed. A pro
    forma audit evaluates the sufficiency of the financial statements
    without issuing a formal audit opinion and without performing an in-
    depth review of the detailed transactions that make up the balances.
    The pro forma audit will prepare the AoC for the full audit that is
    expected to be performed for the fiscal year ending 9/30/02. Since the
    new financial management system is being implemented in a phased
    approach, this is the soonest a full audit can be performed.

                            ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

    Prepared Alternatives Analysis for the Implementation of a Financial
            Management System

        As recommended by the FMS Steering Committee, an alternatives
    analysis was developed evaluating the various alternatives for
    implementing a new financial management system. The alternatives
    analysis compared the advantages and disadvantages of enhancing the
    current system, cross-servicing a system from another Federal agency,
    and purchasing a new financial management system. The alternatives
    analysis was completed on June 18, 1999 and issued to the FMS Steering
    Committee for review and comment.
        The Alternatives Analysis recommended that the AoC cross-service a
    modern financial management system through another Federal agency
    rather than purchase its own software package. The cross-servicing of a
    financial management system allows the AoC to obtain the software
    quicker and at a discounted price. Cross-servicing also reduces the
    technical risk of implementing a modern client-server system. The
    recommended system (American Management System's client-server Momentum
    product) provides a technical platform and other functionality that
    allows the AoC to move forward with its system integration and cost
    accounting goals.

    Entered into a Cross-Servicing arrangement for a Financial Management
            System

        The FMS Steering Committee favored the cross-servicing of a client-
    server financial management system through the Department of the
    Interior. The American Management System's Momentum software package is
    being implemented at the AoC through a cross-servicing arrangement with
    the Department of Interior's National Business Center (franchise fund
    agency). Two interagency agreements were issued to fund the first phase
    of the project. An interagency agreement was issued on 9/23/99 using
    fiscal year 1999 funding and an additional interagency agreement was
    issued on 10/21/99 using fiscal year 2000 funding.
    Prepared FMS Implementation Plan for the Phased implementation of FMS
        An implementation plan was issued to the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees on 12/14/99. The plan defines the FMS
    implementation in four phases, addresses the risks, defines the
    technical responsibilities and specifies the estimated funding
    required. For each phase of the project the major tasks that need to be
    performed are described.
    Hired Staff to Perform the FMS Implementation
        Two Senior Systems Accountants were hired in October, 1999 to
    perform the tasks required to implement the new system. Two additional
    Systems Accountants are in the process of being hired and should be on
    board in February 2000.

    Began the Implementation of Phase 1 of the Financial Management System
            (FMS)

        Phase 1 is the implementation of the Standard General Ledger and
    interfaces to the current accounting and payroll systems. The current
    financial system will continue to be used for all current functions.
    The planned implementation date for beginning production operations of
    Phase 1 FMS is October, 2000. The following tasks have been
    accomplished for the implementation of Phase 1 of FMS:

      --Developed detailed task plan and schedule for Phase 1 of the FMS
            Implementation
      --Developed requirements for payroll interface with FMS
      --Developed requirements for interface with the current financial
            system with FMS
      --Developed SGL chart of accounts and GL posting models
      --Defined accounting classification codes and budget structure

                   UPCOMING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

    Complete the Implementation of Phase 1 of the Financial Management
            System (FMS)

        Phase 1 is the implementation of the Standard General Ledger and
    interfaces to the current accounting and payroll systems. The following
    tasks will be performed to complete the implementation of Phase 1 of
    FMS:

      --Complete the design, development and testing of the payroll
            interface with FMS
      --Complete the design, development and testing of the interface with
            the current financial system with FMS
      --Configure the software package for Phase 1 FMS
      --Perform a pilot test of the configuration of the software
      --Develop reports
      --Train system users
      --Develop user data entry procedures
      --Develop reconciliation procedures between the interfaces and the
            FMS general ledger
      --Convert beginning balances and reference tables

    Begin Additional Phases of the FMS Implementation

        Depending on the receipt of sufficient funding, the FMS phased
    implementation will proceed as follows:

                Phase 2: Implementation of the budget, purchasing, accounts
                        payable and disbursement modules of the core
                        financial system.

        The budget, purchasing, accounts payable and disbursement modules
    of the new system will be implemented. This will require the conversion
    of detailed level data from the current system to the new system. Other
    tasks include the testing and configuration of the new modules, the
    development of an interface with the Project system, the development of
    reports, the development of user procedures and the training of new
    users. The current system will continue to be used for procurement and
    inventory functions while FMS will be the ``system of record'' and be
    used for all other financial functions. Phase 2 is expected to begin in
    October, 2000 and continue through the initiation of production
    operations in October, 2001. The implementation of Phase 2 is dependent
    on receiving sufficient fiscal year 2001 funding.
        With the implementation of Phase 2, the AOC can undergo a full
    audit of its financial statements. A full audit is expected to be
    performed for the financial statements issued for the fiscal year
    ending 9/30/02.

                Phase 3: Implementation of the procurement module of the
                        core financial system.

        A separate procurement module will be purchased and implemented to
    perform the detailed procurement functions being performed by the
    current financial system. This phase of the implementation will include
    the testing and configuration of the procurement module, the
    development of additional interfaces and reports, the conversion of
    data, the development of user procedures and the training of new users.
    The current system will continue to be used only for inventory
    functions. Phase 3 is expected to begin in October, 2001 and continue
    through the initiation of production operations in October, 2002. The
    implementation of Phase 3 is dependent on receiving sufficient fiscal
    year 2002 funding.

                Phase 4: Implementation of a Fixed Asset module

        This phase will implement the Fixed Assets module. With the
    implementation of Phase 4 the AOC will have automated records of its
    fixed assets and will be able to record automated depreciation entries
    in the general ledger. Proper accounting of fixed assets is required to
    receive an unqualified audit opinion. Phase 4 is expected to begin in
    October, 2002 and continue through the initiation of production
    operations in June, 2003. The implementation of Phase 4 is dependent on
    receiving sufficient fiscal year 2003 funding.

                Subsequent FMS Phases

        Subsequent phases of the FMS implementation are expected to include
    a number of system integration initiatives as follows:
      --Integration of the Computer Assisted Facilities Management System
            (CAFM) with FMS
      --Implementation and integration of a Contracting Procurement system
            with FMS
      --Implementation and integration of a new Labor Distribution system
            (HRS Time and Attendance System) with FMS
      --Implementation and integration of a new project tracking/management
            system with FMS
      --Implementation and integration of a new inventory system or a
            warehouse management/inventory system with FMS.

    Inventory Improvements

        The AoC is currently in the process of improving its inventory
    operations to increase controls over the safeguarding of assets and
    provide consistency across the jurisdictions in the application of
    inventory procedures. A complete reconciliation of the actual ``in-
    stock'' inventory to the inventory accounting records is in process.
    Procedures are being enhanced to ensure the continued accuracy of the
    information. A regularly occurring cycle count process has been put in
    place. These activities will not only enhance control over inventory
    operations, they will also facilitate the FMS implementation and
    eventual auditing of financial statements.

      Appendix I.--Status Report on Computer Aided Facilities Management
                                     System

        The Computer Aided Facilities Management system (CAFM) is a five-
    year initiative to modernize and establish stronger and more pro-active
    facilities management capabilities using industry standards and
    software. Within the AOC community, CAFM is phasing in several modules
    of computer aided facilities management operations. The CAFM initiative
    establishes standards for demand maintenance/work order processing and
    preventive maintenance while also providing an automated and systematic
    vehicle for facilities management.
        During the period of fiscal years 1998 through January 2000, the
    AOC has accomplished the following:

      --Procured PC/printer hardware along with SPAN-FM software,
      --Established a Standards Committee and developed standards for the
            deployment of demand work orders, and
      --Deployed demand work order processing to the following
            jurisdictions: Senate, Capitol, House, Supreme Court, and the
            Library of Congress and Electrical Engineering Division in
            support of the CAFM initiative.

        The CAFM program initiative, during fiscal year 2000 will
    accomplish the following:

      --Complete demand work order deployments to Capitol Grounds and High
            Voltage Shop,
      --Start standardization and pilot requirements for Preventive
            Maintenance implementation to Custodial, AC and Electrical
            shops,
      --Implement Work Order Linkage to all AOC jurisdictions,
      --Upgrade current CAFM software to the new Facility Center software,
            and
      --Develop and implement Executive Information Systems and Reports as
            it relates to the CAFM initiative.

        A cost methodology has been developed and finalized for the
    measurement of CAFM cost avoidance, benefits and savings. Once this
    document is approved at the proper levels, it is anticipated funding
    requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget will be appropriated to
    complete the following CAFM requirements:

      --Complete Preventive Maintenance Standardization process,
      --Implement Preventive Maintenance across all AOC jurisdictions,
      --Implement Demand Work Order processing to Botanic Gardens and Power
            Plant.

               Appendix J.--Project Planning and Delivery Studies

        The project planning and delivery processes and organization of the
    Architect of the Capitol (AOC) have been under review by independent
    consulting firms. The purpose has been to streamline the processes and
    staff organization as appropriate based upon ``best practices'' culled
    from the AOC and industry.
        The general findings indicated that the organization of the AOC and
    project operations and output are effective, especially with respect to
    the quick response functions of the Building Superintendents. A
    substantial number of ``best practice'' processes and tools were found
    within the design and construction arms of the AOC. Capable employees
    were found at all levels in the AOC--employees who are passionate
    stewards of the historic buildings in the Capitol Complex and anxious
    to improve their abilities to do their jobs.
        The recommendations related to project identification, planning,
    scope determination, design, procurement and construction, concluding
    that there are many actions that can be taken by the AOC top and middle
    management to enhance and streamline the project delivery processes and
    tools presently in use. Such actions were deemed imperative in light of
    the increasing workload required of the AOC staff in preserving and
    enhancing the facilities and infrastructure of the complex. The
    principal recommendations and resulting actions to be taken by the AOC
    follow.

      --Planning Operation.--The AOC will establish a planning operation
            that will manage the development and cyclical review of long
            range (20 year) and short range (5 year) project plans based
            upon continuous input from clients and AOC line staff and
            technical experts representing all architectural and
            engineering disciplines and other interests such as life safety
            and security. The plans will be generated first by building
            system and component, then integrated by building, then
            jurisdiction, and finally AOC-wide. The long range plan will be
            reviewed annually while the short range plan, comprised of more
            specific scopes of work, will be reviewed and adjusted
            quarterly against the performance of all current projects. The
            AOC will manage the planning process and clients will establish
            and modify priorities as appropriate in the process of
            assessing the impact of unanticipated new work and emergency
            projects on the established long and short range plans. The
            five-year AOC Capital Budget and annual budget submissions will
            be products of this planning process.
          Steps are being taken leading to the establishment of a framework
            for the plans and planning teams of AOC staff who are
            knowledgeable of the infrastructure and systems in each
            building and the entire complex. A new core planning staff will
            have to be established with skills appropriate to long range
            planning and the preparation of project programs and scopes of
            work. It is anticipated that the planning operation will result
            in a greater AOC and client understanding of long range needs,
            the more orderly prioritization of work, and better definition
            of project scope, budget and schedule, agreed to by clients and
            the AOC prior to the commencement of the design process.
      --Building Superintendents.--The Superintendents' strong, front-line
            relationships with clients is widely understood and
            appreciated, and will continue to be recognized and used to the
            advantage of all parties in the project planning, scoping,
            design and construction processes. The Superintendents and
            their knowledgeable staff will be given additional
            responsibility for meeting with any client who has requested
            assistance, preparing an initial statement of scope, and
            determining if the client's needs can be satisfied by the
            issuance of a work order to the Superintendent's work forces or
            if an AOC-wide team needs to be assigned to address the client
            needs as a full project requiring further scope definition,
            design and construction. In either the work order or the
            project delivery process, the Superintendent will remain fully
            involved with the work and with client communications. The
            processes and tools associated with this improved project
            initiation effort will be finalized early in 2000.
      --Project Management.--An AOC Project Manager will be assigned for
            the life of a project, from early scope definition through
            design, construction and occupancy. For purposes of project
            progress reporting, the Project Manager will report through a
            Program Management Group to the Assistant Architect of the
            Capitol (AAOC). Through the group, project progress will be
            monitored, resources shifted as necessary, and problems quickly
            resolved. The group, together with the appropriate
            Superintendent, will also serve as the communication link with
            clients.
          The roles, responsibilities and accountability of Project
            Managers, Program Management Group and other key AOC staff will
            be defined. Project Managers will be responsible for
            coordinating the work of consultants, contractors and
            supporting AOC staff experts, and accountable for meeting
            project budget and schedule requirements. Project Managers will
            receive appropriate training to ensure they can fulfill their
            critical role effectively and efficiently. The AOC top
            management will initiate an aggressive training program
            internally, and has also begun to hire talented project
            managers from the outside on a temporary project-by-project
            basis to augment staff.
      --AOC Standards and Guidelines.--AOC requirements related to project
            delivery will be better defined, published and disseminated in
            the form of guidelines, manuals, checklists, and electronic
            tools and systems. These will give earlier and more complete
            and consistent direction to design consultants and construction
            contractors as well as AOC staff technical experts, all of whom
            are supporting the Project Managers who are accountable for
            meeting all project requirements. Work on these improvements
            has already begun and is expected to be completed during 2000.
      --Consultant Utilization.--The AOC will expand its use of external
            design consultants to maximize the return on the AOC's highly
            knowledgeable and committed staff who must devote increasing
            time to project management and the application of an
            appropriate level of oversight of all project activities to
            protect the interests of clients and the Capitol Complex
            facilities entrusted to the care of the AOC. This will include
            an increase in the use of ``indefinite delivery, indefinite
            quantity'' (IDIQ) professional services contracts and possibly
            other creative architect and engineer selection procedures that
            are also fair and competitive on the basis of professional
            qualifications.
      --Construction Contracting Methods.--The AOC will continue to expand
            its options for construction delivery to ensure the most
            balanced and efficient use of AOC staff and the timely
            completion of work with minimum disturbance to building
            occupants and visitors. The options will supplement the
            traditional and dependable quick-response teams and maintenance
            shops of the Superintendents. At present, the Superintendents
            have the option of hiring temporary employees and utilizing the
            construction services of the AOC Construction Branch. The AOC
            Construction Management Division has the option to use the
            services of a Job Order Contractor (JOC) who is under a long
            term contract to complete construction jobs on call at
            previously agreed to unit prices, and to procure the services
            of general contractors through Invitations For Bids (IFBs) and
            Requests For Proposals (RFPs). The AOC also anticipates the
            establishment of a new construction delivery option, the
            Solution Order Contractor (SOC). A number of SOCs will be
            competitively selected on the basis of qualifications and put
            under contract to bid competitively among themselves for
            specific AOC construction projects. The final new option, for
            highly complex projects, is the provision of overall
            coordinated design and construction management services by an
            independent Construction Manager, under contract with the AOC.
        An implementation plan was prepared at the conclusion of the AOC
    Project Delivery Best Practice Study. It is structured in four areas of
    concentration that address all of the above recommendations and
    actions:

      --Leadership Guidance and Direction.--The AOC Senior Policy Group and
            Superintendents will establish goals and objectives, a schedule
            and milestones, and performance criteria. ``All Hands''
            workshops will be held early in the implementation process
            during which the leadership commitment to improvement will be
            communicated clearly to all AOC staff.
      --Planning Operation.--The various steps leading to the establishment
            of the planning operation have been set forth. As stated
            earlier, a core planning staff team will have to be
            established. This will require the hiring of new staff with
            appropriate special skills in planning and program and scope
            definition.
      --Project Management and New Tools.--This track is aimed at providing
            the ``best practices'' and tools for the most effective and
            efficient management of projects. The ``best practices'' were
            identified during the CLA study, and the finalization of these
            and the new tools has begun. Their effectiveness will be tested
            by applying them to pilot projects selected from the current
            workload of the AOC.
      --Training and Pilot Projects.--An ambitious program of training will
            be charted for skills in leadership, supervision,
            communication, and project management. Pilot projects will be
            identified for the application of ``best practices''.
            Implementation is being scheduled at this time and target dates
            have been established subject to workload. It is anticipated
            that consultants will continue to be involved in activities
            designed to sustain momentum toward positive change and ``best
            practices'' implementation, and aimed at establishing essential
            reporting and feedback cycles.

              Appendix K.--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request Summary

        The Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2001 budget request is
    $252,121,000. It consists of an operating request of $183,382,000 and a
    capital request of $68,739,000. The full-time equivalent (FTE)
    positions remain the same at 2,012. However, funding is requested to
    fill 70 unfunded positions. The attached graph ``Fiscal Year 2001
    Operating and Capital Budget by Categories'' breaks out the operating
    and capital request by significant categories. The graph ``Fiscal Year
    2001 Operating and Capital Budget'' reflects the history of the
    Architect of the Capitol's budget since fiscal year 1994.

                            OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST

        The operating budget request includes an $18,577,000 or 11.3
    percent increase. Thirty-six percent or $6,740,000 of the increase is
    due to mandated pay and benefits costs. Forty-eight percent or
    $8,957,000 of the increase is related to work load increases and
    includes $3,927,000 for 70 unfunded positions, $959,000 for cleaning
    services, $600,000 for financial management and audit services, and
    $1,487,000 for information resources management. Price level
    adjustments account for 9.4 percent or $1,750,000 of the increase and
    are primarily related to fuel costs. Election year moves accounts for
    6.1 percent or $1,130,000 of the requested increase.
        Over the past year the AOC has undertaken a review of the agency's
    operations and is in the process of reengineering. As displayed in the
    attached graph ``Full-time Equivalent Employment Budget'' staffing has
    been reduced by more than 16 percent or almost 400 positions since
    1992. During the same period workload has increased, especially in the
    areas of life safety, security initiatives and project oversight. It is
    important to recognize that we have reached the saturation point where
    the amount of work to be done in several areas has taxed our staff
    capacities to the fullest extent. This budget includes requested
    increases for staff in several critical areas. Funding is requested for
    13 positions in the Life Safety Division, 28 positions for the Senate
    Office Buildings primarily for cleaning and painting services, 14
    positions for the House Office Buildings mainly to supplement the
    trades staff, 7 positions for the Botanic Garden to support the
    reopening of the newly renovated Conservatory and the new National
    Garden, and a total of 8 positions in the Engineering and Architecture
    Divisions.
        An increase of $1,487,000 is requested for the Information
    Resources Management Division. As the agency becomes more dependent on
    automated systems in the areas of financial management, and facilities
    maintenance it is critical that the hardware and software resources
    needed to support these systems are available.
        An increase of $362,000 is requested for life safety operations and
    maintenance. These resources are required to provide compliant safety
    and environmental programs and to be proactive in all matters that
    involve fire and life safety, employee safeguards, environmental
    monitoring, and discharge of potentially dangerous materials.
        An increase of $600,000 is requested to support the operation of
    the new financial management system including an ``audit'' of pro forma
    financial statements. Funding of $759,000 has been requested in the
    Botanic Garden related to the operation of the newly renovated
    Conservatory.
        Additional funding of $595,000 has been requested in the Senate
    Office Buildings to supplement cleaning of public areas and restrooms
    and for contractual cleaning of the Capitol Police Headquarters. An
    additional $400,000 has been requested in the House Office Buildings to
    supplement cleaning of public areas and restrooms. The normal requests
    for election year moves have also been requested. They include $150,000
    for the Capitol Building, $380,000 for Senate Office Buildings and
    $600,000 for House Office Buildings.
        Based on projections from the Department of Energy a net increase
    of $1,615,000 has been requested to cover rising costs of natural gas
    and fuel oil for the Capitol Power Plant. Other price level increases
    totaling $135,000 have been requested throughout the agency.
        The following table indicates operating budget request by
    appropriation.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                              Appropriation                                2000            2001           Change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Buildings...............................................     $37,610,000     $44,288,000     +$6,678,000
    Capitol Grounds.................................................       5,062,000       5,515,000        +453,000
    Senate Office Buildings.........................................      39,519,000      44,359,000      +4,840,000
    House Office Buildings..........................................      31,177,000      34,885,000      +3,708,000
    Capitol Power Plant.............................................      36,884,000      39,009,000      +2,125,000
    Library Buildings & Grounds.....................................      11,341,000      10,688,000        -653,000
    Botanic Garden..................................................       3,212,000       4,638,000      +1,426,000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................     164,805,000     183,382,000     +18,577,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST

        The capital budget request is $68,739,000. This is an increase of
    $23,255,000 or 51 percent over fiscal year 2000.
        The fiscal year 2001 capital budget request flows from the five-
    year capital budget initiative undertaken by the agency. It is grounded
    in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide planning effort with in-
    depth involvement by all of the agency's clients. On the House side, we
    included the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and the
    Clerk of the House. On the Senate side we included the Sergeant at Arms
    and the Secretary of the Senate. The U.S. Capitol Police provided a
    detailed outline of their needs, and the Librarian of Congress was also
    extensively involved. During the development process more than 400
    projects were reviewed. Of that number, funding is requested for 68
    projects in fiscal year 2001. Funding requests are projected over the
    next four years for an additional 157 projects.
        Construction funding has only been requested in fiscal year 2001
    for those projects that have been completely designed. Because of the
    agency's current workload, only the most critical projects have been
    requested in fiscal year 2001. The five-year capital budget is
    projecting requests in the fiscal years 2002 through 2005 as follows:

            Fiscal year                                               Amount

    2002....................................................    $181,082,000
    2003....................................................      81,058,000
    2004....................................................     221,570,000
    2005....................................................     113,537,000

        All the projects associated with future requests will be reviewed
    and reprioritized before being included in a current fiscal year
    request. However, the magnitude of the future capital project needs is
    evident from this table.
        Attached is a graph ``Fiscal Year 2001 Capital Requests by
    Category'' and a table ``Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request by Category''
    that breaks out the amount, number of projects and the percentage of
    each by category. Six projects account for more than 65 percent of the
    request. Those projects are the Renovation of the Dirksen Senate Office
    Building ($19,241,000), Cannon Garage repairs ($9,000,000), Renovate
    the Rayburn Cafeteria ($5,261,000), the Library of Congress new Audio
    Visual Conservation Center at Culpeper, Virginia ($5,000,000), a new
    Off-Site Delivery/Screening Center for the Capitol Police ($4,500,000),
    and a new vehicle maintenance facility for the Police ($2,250,000).
        In past years, the AOC developed a reinvestment benchmark of 1.7
    percent of the current replacement value of the facilities as a guide
    of the amount of cyclical maintenance funding that should be invested
    into the Capitol complex. This benchmark excludes capital project
    funding relating to the construction of additional facilities, security
    enhancements and technology management improvement that are included in
    the total capital request. For fiscal year 2001 the benchmark of 1.7
    percent would indicate that $63 million should be reinvested in
    cyclical maintenance and renovation projects. As indicated on the
    attached graph titled ``Cyclical Maintenance and Building
    Renovations'', $52 million is being requested for facility reinvestment
    projects in fiscal year 2001. Because the benchmark represents an
    average, the current request is acceptable. However, as indicated on
    the graph there will be much larger requests in future years.
        The following table summarizes the funding levels presented in the
    five-year capital budget by category.

                                              FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTIONS
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year--                     Five
                          Category                       --------------------------------------------------   year
                                                            2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life Safety.........................................   $11,134   $20,854    $9,669   $25,650    $3,850   $71,157
    ADA.................................................     1,558     4,215     2,880     2,355     1,030    12,038
    Security............................................     5,200    17,873       700    14,300     5,000    43,073
    Cyclical Maintenance--Improvement...................    20,141    11,350     2,450    13,850    10,400    58,191
    Cyclical Maintenance................................    11,200    86,598    26,724   107,405    54,957   286,884
    Technology/Management Systems.......................     3,160     6,485     3,040       200       200    13,085
    Improvement--AOC....................................     1,065    12,152     5,925     8,800       200    28,142
    Improvement--Client.................................    15,281    21,555    29,670    49,010    37,900   153,416
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................................    68,739   181,082    81,058   221,570   113,537   665,986
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following table summarizes the capital budget request by
    appropriation.

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal     Fiscal
      Appropriation--No. of fiscal year   Year 2000  Year 2001    Change         Major Fiscal Year 2001 Project
                2000 Projects               Budget    Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Buildings--21 projects......     $9,048    $15,750    +$6,702  Off-site Delivery Center--$4,500,000;
                                                                            USPC Vehicle Maintenance Facility--
                                                                            $2,250,000; Financial Management System--
                                                                            $1,475,000; Asbestos Survey--$1,225,000
    Capitol Grounds--3 projects.........        344        605       +261  Wayfinding & ADA Signs--$330,000; CAD
                                                                            Database--$250,000
    Senate Office Buildings--8 projects.     24,276     22,269     -2,007  DSOB Renovations--$19,241,000; Roof Fall
                                                                            Protection--$1,678,000
    House Office Buildings--10 projects.      5,960     18,384    +12,424  Garage Floor Repairs, CHOB--$9,000,000;
                                                                            Renovate Rayburn Cafeteria--$5,261,000;
                                                                            Sprinklers & Telecommunications, RHOB--
                                                                            $1,815,000
    Capitol Power Plant--11 projects....      1,025      1,863       +838  Roof Fall Protection--$323,000; New Oil
                                                                            Tanks--$350,000
    Library Buildings & Grounds--13           4,631      9,590     +4,959  Audio Visual Center--$5,000,000; Replace
     projects.                                                              Switchgear JMMB--$1,750,000
    Botanic Garden--2 projects..........        200        278        +78  Way Finding/ADA Signs--$203,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.........................     45,484     68,739    +23,255  .........................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                           [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.000

                                                                           [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.001

                                                                           [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.002

                                                                           [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.003

                          ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST BY CATEGORY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Excluding House office buildings
                                    Fiscal year                             ----------------------------------------
               Category                 2001     Percent   No. of   Percent  Fiscal year
                                      request             projects               2001     Percent   No. of   Percent
                                                                               request             projects
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life safety...................  $11,134,000     16.2       18      26.5   $8,871,000     17.6       15      25.8
    ADA...........................    1,558,000      2.3        7      10.3    1,188,000      2.4        6      10.3
    Security......................    5,200,000      7.6        3       4.4    5,200,000     10.3        3       5.2
    Cyclical maintenance/            20,141,000     29.3        2       2.9   19,241,000     38.2        1       1.7
     improvement..................
    Cyclical maintenance..........   11,200,000     16.3       14      20.6    2,080,000      4.1       12      20.7
    Technology/management systems.    3,160,000      4.6        7      10.3    3,160,000      6.3        7      12.1
    Improvement:
        AOC.......................    1,065,000      1.5        7      10.3    1,065,000      2.1        7      12.1
        Client....................   15,281,000     22.2       10      14.7    9,550,000     19.0        7      12.1
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................   68,739,000    100.0       68     100.0   50,355,000    100.0       58     100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                             [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.004

                     Architect of the Capitol benchmark data

                        [Fiscal year 2001 funding levels]

    Current Facility Replacement Value......................  $3,700,000,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
                                                              Annual renewal
                                                                  percentage

    AOC Benchmark (Based on Universities of Illinois,
        Michigan, and Stanford and the Army Corps of
        Engineers)..........................................            1.7
    Army Corps of Engineers (Budget Objective)..............            1.75
    University Federal Research Cost Recovery (OMB A-21)....            2.0
    Conservative Commercial Depreciation at 40 Years (IRS
        will accept a faster depreciation rate).............            2.5
    National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences:
        Low Range...........................................            1.5
        High Range..........................................            3.0
    Fiscal year 2001 Capital Request (Request $68,739,000,
        Less $16,710,000 Related to Technology/Management
        Systems, Security, and New Facilities)..............            1.4

                          Dirksen Building remodeling

        Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I should make a comment with respect to the Dirksen
    remodeling. When I came here, the Dirksen Building was
    considered the low rent district, and Senators would start
    their careers in the Dirksen Building and then move out as
    quickly as they possibly could. I have nostalgia for the
    Dirksen Building because this is where my father had his
    office, and I was very content to stay here.
        I happen to think it is better laid out, from a practical
    standpoint, than either of the other two. My own prejudice is
    that I prefer the architecture of the Hart Building. I know
    most people say they prefer the Russell, but I love the soaring
    atrium and the plants and all the rest of it, until I get into
    the individual offices, and then they strike me as rabbit
    warrens for the staff. And I prefer the big windows and the
    large rooms in the Dirksen Building.
        Now that it has been renovated--and mine was the first
    suite to be renovated--I consider that we are in the high rent
    district, and I will not give up my office to Strom Thurmond.
        I want a royalty for the design that I gave you for the
    removal of the safe, because I understand a number of Senators
    have asked for exactly the same design.
        Mr. Hantman. This is true.
        Senator Bennett. I will donate those royalties to the
    budget of the Architect of the Capitol.
        But thank you for the truly well thought out way in which
    this building is being renovated. And it is now work space that
    will serve the needs of the Senators for another 50 years. It
    is roughly 50 years since the Dirksen Building was conceived,
    and I am sure that we will get our monies worth out of it. And
    I want to commend you for that.
        Now, with that, Senator Mikulski has joined us. Senator, we
    are delighted to have you, and happy to hear whatever you might
    want to say now, or any questions you might want to ask of the
    Architect.

                    STATEMENT OF Senator BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Bennett. And of course, welcome, to the Architect of the
    Capitol.
        I am so pleased to hear that the Dirksen has been upgraded,
    and hopefully when we work on HUD appropriations, you see the
    wisdom of urban neighborhood revitalization and we can enlist
    you in other projects. But thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I am going to submit
    for the record, but essentially what I want to focus on is----
        Senator Bennett. Your statement will be included.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        I would like to thank the members of this committee for allowing me
    to attend this hearing.
        As many of you know, I have taken a particular interest in the
    workings of the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect employees
    contribute to the daily functioning of the Capitol and I am proud to
    say that so many employees call Maryland their home.
        The Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the physical
    architecture of the Capitol complex. This includes the safety of those
    who work here, the upkeep of the buildings and grounds, and the smooth
    operation of services that allow all of us to be able to do our jobs.
        This is important work and an important responsibility. However, I
    think that caring for the social architecture of the Capitol work force
    is just as important and just as big a responsibility and that is why I
    am here today at this hearing.
        As many of you may know, there have been recent problems with
    employee morale and treatment. Mr. Hantman, I understand that you have
    made some progress in addressing the problems in your office. Your
    management team has taken some steps to try and educate your employees.
    I have heard from some employees that they feel less intimidated by the
    management and that there is less abusive language and verbal abuse. I
    appreciate this progress but more needs to be done.
        When you were first confirmed you assured me that the way your
    predecessor did business would stop. My office still receives 15 calls
    per week from employees expressing concern about how they are being
    treated. That says to me that it is still business as usual in the
    Architect of Capitol's office. That says to me that you have
    ineffective people and ineffective systems.
        Your employees either have a lack of confidence in the system you
    have in place or are so frightened of retaliatory action that they come
    to a United States Senator before they will use your system. Because of
    all these complaints, I am the EEOC by proxy.
        I would like to share with you some of the concerns that your
    employees have expressed:

      --Employees are so concerned about retaliatory action that they are
            afraid to approach management about their grievances.
      --There has been no formal sexual harassment training. Employees have
            only received a booklet.
      --Overtime for full-time employees has been cut even though some
            employees had been working and being paid for overtime for
            years.
      --When job audits are performed by your office they are done to
            penalize employees and help management.

        You have submitted biweekly reports to me about the progress you
    have made and I acknowledge that you have taken these steps. The fact
    is, whatever you are doing is not working. I know that it is not
    working because your employees are still coming to me because they feel
    that they have no other place to go. My constituents should always feel
    that they can come to me with their concerns. But, at this point, they
    come to me because they feel that they cannot come to you. Either they
    do not know about the grievance procedures or they do not trust them.
    The end result is the same.
        I am understandably frustrated with the lack of real progress. I
    need to know what additional steps you are going to take so that I am
    not the EEOC or Office of Compliance by proxy.

                                    SECURITY

        Senator Mikulski. What I want to focus on is, of course,
    the--I want to agree with the priorities that you have
    established in safety, security, cleanliness, human resources,
    and the need to have not only a concern for the physical
    architecture, but social architecture.
        In terms of the security, I believe that Senator Bennett
    and his team will probe that more. I would really hope that we
    would continue to focus on security for the people not only who
    visit us, but the people who work here; and also the security
    of our police.
        As we know, we had a melancholy event, and we need to--and
    I believe Senator Wellstone has been raising some of those
    issues and others. So, the thin blue line is our first line of
    defense.
        We do not want to mope around the Capitol of the United
    States. But we need to be able to protect the people who do
    work here. So, that is another area of pursuit.

                                HUMAN RESOURCES

        I would like to just use my time to focus on the human
    resources and say this: I understand, as you know, that often
    employees approach me, because, particularly the blue collar
    level employees, because they live usually in either Maryland
    or the District of Columbia. So, therefore, I become the
    Senator for many of the people who live in the District.
        The restaurant employees have particularly been concerned.
    And you and I have been engaged in a conversation, but though
    some progress has been made in addressing the problems in your
    office, I continue to receive 15 calls a week from employees
    expressing concern about the way they are being treated.
        And in fact, I have become the EEO office for your office
    by proxy. I cannot keep this up. And it is not that I want to
    abdicate my responsibility to my constituents, but 15 calls a
    week on case work situations take a lot of time from my office.
        I have heard from employees that they feel less intimidated
    by management when we begin our dialog, Mr. Architect. There is
    a great deal of intimidations and fear of retaliation. But
    though they feel it has been a lower decibel level of
    intimidation and abuse, they still feel that more needs to be
    done, and the pattern continues.
        You have kept me up to date on these biweekly reports that
    I have asked, and I acknowledge your cooperation. But in
    looking at this, it seems like this is the list, but there is a
    disconnect between your list and their experience of the
    situation. What people, essentially, come to me saying is that
    you have ineffective systems and ineffective or poorly trained
    people running those systems. Okay.
        So, they do not have confidence in the system or the people
    they talk to. So they have confidence in me, and I have got to
    come back to you. We have got to break that. So, let me just
    list four items and then let us just get your solutions----
        Mr. Hantman. Yes.

                               EMPLOYEE CONCERNS

        Senator Mikulski (continuing). Because we are not going
    into spring hazing and you and I arguing with each other, but
    employees are--first of all, continue to be concerned about
    retaliatory action and are often afraid to approach management.
    So, when they raise an issue, it often ends up in their
    personnel record. Okay.
        There has been no formal sexual harassment training. They
    get a booklet, but as you know, that is a very complex issue.
    And so overtime for full employees has been cut, even though
    some employees have been working and paid for overtime for
    years.
        The other is, job audits are performed by your audit, are
    often done, they feel, to penalize employees, to do
    downgrading. Now, I am not going to go into what is right or
    wrong. I am giving you----
        Mr. Hantman. Sure.
        Senator Mikulski (continuing). What is persistently
    presented to me. But again, it is inconsistency interpretation
    of sick leave, family and medical leave--what are they entitled
    to--and these other patterns that we raised.
        So I am going to acknowledge one progress made, decibel
    level, but they do feel that it is lip service, inconsistent
    and unclear. So, could I have your thoughts, though, what we
    are doing here, and do you personally supervise your human
    resources and so on?
        Mr. Hantman. We have, Senator--the issues that you raise,
    the level of comfort certainly needs to be improved. There is
    no doubt about that. The commitment that we have made to
    improving it is very real, and there are regular meetings
    established to discuss these issues with each group of
    supervisors and each group of employees, with Human Resources
    and EEO in attendance.
        There are monthly meetings where each supervisor meets with
    his or her employees. Discussions are open. A fairly standard
    list of items that are discussed, customer satisfaction, safety
    and sanitation, training, posting, job announcements, any
    issues----
        Senator Mikulski. I know what you do, but why is it not
    working?
        Mr. Hantman. I think one of the basic concerns of a lot of
    people when change occurs, Senator, is that we have gone from a
    restaurant staff of some 238 people--we are down to 135 people
    right now. There are very strong demands to bring our budget
    into account and not continue to lose money as the restaurants
    have always done.
        So, when change is there, when people have new assignments
    made, when people--in fact, in the past, if you had worked in
    the Capitol, you were never assigned to the Senate office
    buildings and vice versa. People now support one another,
    especially during times of break, when the Senate is not in
    session and the Capitol is----
        Senator Mikulski. But do you understand what I am saying
    now?
        Mr. Hantman. Sure.
        Senator Mikulski. It does not have anything to do with the
    kind of casework problems that come here.
        Mr. Hantman. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. The failure to understand promotions, the
    lack of sexual harassment training, verbal abuse and so on, and
    there is also continual rumors--and I am not into rumor
    control----
        Mr. Hantman. Sure.

                         SENATE RESTAURANTS SUPERVISION

        Senator Mikulski (continuing). That the executive office
    that are assigned to oversee this, has--and I do not want to
    name names; it is inappropriate in a public hearing like this--
    but has himself or herself had complaints lodged against them,
    so that they feel that the person in charge is not necessarily
    committed to them.
        And you have systems, and again that is why I say lip
    service, disconnected and so on. You might believe that this is
    working, and I do not doubt that you do, but it is not working.
    Something is very dysfunctional here. Now, either they do not
    have enough people--I do not know the stations. I am not a
    Human Resource person. But there is a tremendous disconnect.
        Mr. Hantman. Understood.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, my fault, your time, but--
    --
        Mr. Hantman. Surely. Several points, Senator. Hector
    Suarez, who is the head of our Human Resources group is
    currently at the Kennedy Space Center looking at HR re-
    engineering issues, to take a look at our own organization and
    how HR works. This is one of the issues.
        Any issue of retaliatory action just does not exist, from
    everything that I know. And from everything that I am setting
    the tone for, going down the line, we have a new head of the
    Senate restaurants, Mike Marinaccio, as you know, who has come
    in, very professional individual. He is the day-to-day person
    responsible.
        We have an industrial psychologist who has come in, began
    to meet with our people; an outside person to hear their
    complaints, to hear where it is coming from, so he can feed
    back from another perspective on what he is hearing, what the
    employees are saying, and investigate himself what the
    management and supervisors are or are not doing better and
    appropriate.
        Some of the supervisors who people have complained about,
    we are sending them to training for sensitivity. We recognize
    that some folks have been promoted because they have been here
    a long time and have skills, but not necessarily good
    management skills. And they need to treat our employees with
    more sensitivity. We are working on that, too.
        It is nothing though that can be turned around very
    quickly. We are working on it as quickly as we can. I am sure
    there is more that we can do, and I look forward to working
    with you on it.

                               PERSONAL OVERSIGHT

        Senator Mikulski. Are you personally overseeing this issue?
        Mr. Hantman. I have not been personally on site with this
    issue. I have been personally talking with all the management,
    but not down with all the employees.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, tell me your personal involvement
    in this.
        Mr. Hantman. My personal involvement is having meetings
    with management at all levels of the Senate restaurants to talk
    about what has happened.
        Senator Mikulski. And then what are your means of feedback,
    because again--I am mindful of the Chairman's time--but I am
    going to have to bill you for doing your casework for you----
        Mr. Hantman. Sure.
        Senator Mikulski (continuing). And billing it through the
    appropriations. I mean----

                            INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGIST

        Mr. Hantman. One of my means of feedback is going to be
    this industrial psychologist, taking a third-person, impartial
    view of what is happening, what he is hearing, what he is
    seeing, and the feedback he is getting from employees with
    recommendations on what is to be done. So, that is----
        Senator Mikulski. Well----
        Mr. Hantman. That is an impartial type of approach as well.
        Senator Mikulski. There is no finer, I think, management
    consultant than the gentleman we have here chairing this
    committee. The experience that he brings from the private
    sector is really significant, and I think very helpful.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I am going to discuss this with you in
    more detail, and let us see how we----
        Senator Bennett. All right.
        Senator Mikulski (continuing). Can have--what--your very
    wise head pursue this, because we can get into industrial
    psychology and somebody down in the Space Center. I really do
    not know if it works. Quite frankly, I do not know the
    applicability of a Space Center to the Architect of the
    Capitol.
        Second, industrial psychologists are often very gifted and
    talented. This is a unique organization, and your predecessor
    and the culture of the Senate was that this had a pre-
    plantation mentality, and you know that.
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. And I discussed that. Now, we are trying
    to break through that. This group of employees are people of
    color, often with language issues as well, and so all of this
    kind of--what sounds very good in text point, textbook, I am
    not so sure----
        Mr. Hantman. Right.
        Senator Mikulski (continuing). Is working. And I really
    need recommendations on what is to work, so that we have high
    morale. The people who work here, and the restaurant employees,
    are enormously dedicated. We know they have longevity, et
    cetera.
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. But they have to feel confident that
    working in the very institution that has created the Civil
    Rights Act is also working for them.
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. Perhaps a good basis to begin this
    discussion, and I would welcome that, is to re-do what we did 2
    weeks ago. We had a representative from your office, of this
    committee, of the Rules Administration Committee, we had our HR
    people, our EEO people come in and talk about all of the
    programs we are doing, what we are physically doing from a lot
    of different perspectives.
        If we are not doing all the right things, we would
    certainly welcome feedback on that, but we had a 2-hour meeting
    with a lot of interaction for a lot of people, hearing and
    probing of what we are doing and what meaning it could have.
        I would welcome the opportunity to do that with you,
    Senator, and with you, as well, sir, to talk about what we are
    doing and have the people who are on the front line dealing
    with the day-to-day workers, and what they are hearing, what
    they are seeing. My goals are your goals, Senator.
        If there is any legacy I can leave over here after the end
    of my tenure, it would be a staff that is dedicated to service,
    that has an opportunity for growth and job satisfaction as
    well. That is very important.

                               PROBLEM RESOLUTION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Hantman, this is, for all
    intents and purposes, is March 1. I have got to really have
    this resolved by June 1, again because the very people I have
    assigned--and I am not abdicating my responsibility, but I do
    feel that I am now providing a service to my constituents which
    I am delighted to do, but it is because of a failure of a
    system somewhere else and----
        Mr. Hantman. But I assure you, Senator, there is more than
    words right here. There are a lot of good people working on
    good things that I would love to sit down with you and explain
    that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, maybe we could talk more about it.
        Senator Bennett. I am not sure I agree with your
    characterization of my skills, but whatever they are, I will be
    happy to----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, the Y2K bug----
        Senator Bennett (continuing). Participate in this.
        Senator Mikulski (continuing). Turned out to be the flu.
        Senator Bennett. Yes. That is true.
        Senator Mikulski. But you did an outstanding job on that.
    No, I think, actually--no. I think that you are--no, really you
    are doing a very good job here.
        This is often not viewed as--it is like starting out in
    Dirksen Legislative. But this is really--no. The American
    people count on us when they come, not only for our votes, but
    there is nothing here.
        You know, everybody talks about tourism attractions, you
    know, the Smithsonian is the highest in American. But they
    really come to see us, American democracy. But it is the
    invisibility of it, our police, our maintenance, our
    restaurant, all of the team under you that makes it work, so
    that when people walk in, their tour guides, everything. And
    often it is the only interaction that they are going to have
    with the American government. So, anyway--but let me let you
    go.
        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you for coming and for raising
    it in your usual forceful and direct manner. And I will take
    the compliment as an assignment, and inject myself into this to
    the degree that I might be helpful.
        And we take, also, your deadline. The 1st of June sounds
    like a logical time for us to have some kind of understanding
    and resolution, at least toward a solution if not complete
    solution.
        I have always found in the private sector that if people
    feel things are moving their way, they can be patient. If they
    are convinced they are moving the wrong way, sometimes they can
    be very impatient even if, in fact, the problem is not as bad
    as they perceive. So, perception of movement is just as
    contributory many times as some of the other activities.
        So, again, thank you, Senator. We appreciate you being
    here.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        Mr. Hantman, would you update the committee, for the
    record, on the status of your financial management project? I
    referred to that in my opening statement, but I think it would
    be appropriate for you to have a comment of your own on that.
        Mr. Hantman. I think there is good news in that, Mr.
    Chairman. As you mentioned, Russ Follin, we are very glad that
    he is heading up that effort for us. And we are currently in
    phase one of the financial management system, which is
    basically to implement the standard general ledger and accounts
    receivable modules.
        We expect that--our planned production date, we should be
    on line with that by October 1 of this year. We will have some
    25 users for that. It is fully funded, and the process is
    working very well.
        What this should allow us to do is to do general ledger
    accounting. The ability to produce end-of-period financial
    statements, compliance with Federal SGL requirements,
    standardization of accounting codes and budget structures are
    underway right now across all of our jurisdictions.
        Detailed level payroll information is now available; data
    captured at the employee level or at the paint shop or plumbing
    shop; organization code level will be able to be captured now;
    the automation of status of funds reports, which your committee
    basically needs for current year activity for no-year
    appropriations; capital projects funded for annual
    appropriations; funding status by object class. All of these as
    of October 1 should be able to begin to be produced as the
    information is developed.
        We are requesting from this committee in our budget this
    year two issues: Some $1.47 million for phase two of the work,
    and another $600,000 that involves paying for the rights to use
    the software that we are cross servicing with.
        We are cross servicing through the Department of the
    Interior with the AMS, Momentum Software package right now. So
    we have fees to pay to them. Included in that $600,000 is a
    request for some $200,000 for us to essentially do a dry run
    audit.
        At the completion of phase two, on October 1, 2001, we
    would be able to begin to give you auditable statements. We
    need to be able to develop the information once that base of
    phase two work is done. But we want to do a dry run this fiscal
    year, set ourselves up to prepare ourselves for an audit the
    next fiscal year. So, that is in our budget right now.
        So, what we are looking for in the remaining modules of the
    base systems, budget execution modules, purchasing modules for
    obligations, accounts payable module, disbursements module.
    Those are all included in what we have requested for this year.
    And that would expand our user base from 25 to 100 people, and
    we are requesting those funds in this fiscal year.
        Two subsequent phases will also be requested to implement
    the procurement module in phase three. And phase four would be
    to implement the fixed asset module as well.
        We are building a foundation here, Mr. Chairman, a strong
    foundation. We have been working together with the GAO, with
    the legislative branch Financial Management Council. A lot of
    good people have input into this.
        We feel we are going in the right direction. And by
    essentially cross servicing, we have not expended a whole lot
    of dollars in recreating the wheel, especially if we are
    potentially going toward a shared facility for all agencies up
    on the Hill. So, I think we have built a very strong base.
        If you would like more detail--have I left anything else
    out, Russ, that we talked about?
        Mr. Follin. Covered it all.
        Mr. Hantman. Covered it all.

                                EMPLOYEE SAFETY

        Senator Bennett. Okay. Thank you. You have had some
    problems in the area of worker's safety. The number of lost
    work days per employee is quite high. Do you want to address
    that problem as well?
        Mr. Hantman. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave.
    There is a hearing with the Attorney General over in Commerce.
    So, I want to thank you for your courtesy and look forward to
    working with you.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. My leaving does not mean I am not
    interested, but it is Reno's last testimony.
        Senator Bennett. I think you have made it fairly clear you
    are interested.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much, Senator, for the request.
    I look forward to meeting with you and building on this.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you.
        If we could respond to that for the record, I would
    appreciate that, sir. We will get you information on that.
        Senator Bennett. All right. Fine.
        [The information follows:]

        The Office of the Architect initiated a number of efforts to reduce
    the number of workdays lost due to injuries and illness incurred on the
    job.
        The AOC believes it's a win-win situation when a Federal agency
    aggressively takes an active role in making the health and safety of
    its employees a top priority. We are confident that this will result in
    increased productivity and savings in taxpayer dollars in reduced
    workers compensation cost. Our Life Safety Program Division and the
    Human Resources Management Division have assumed this proactive
    approach in working together to reduce work-related injuries and
    illnesses on the job, and reduce lost work days incurred.
        In August of 1998, we initiated action to improve the entire AOC's
    Workers' Compensation Program by centralizing the program into one
    office for over sight administration. Last year, we made major
    improvements which include the following:
      --Redesigned the entire program to include a more aggressive return-
            to-work program and improvements in the medical management of
            the disabled worker;
      --Secured the services of the Attending Physician's Office as a
            medical advisor;
      --Established a three-year Strategic Plan in 1999 that focuses on
            prevention and reducing work related injuries and illnesses,
            controlling workers' compensation costs by reducing days lost
            due to those injuries or illnesses, and securing accurate
            information that assists the AOC in making sound decisions
            based on expert medical advice;
      --Developed a new day-one case management system that implements
            quality case management the first day a claim is initiated by
            an injured worker;
      --Implemented a proactive Early-Return-to-Work Program that
            encourages the practice of ``100 percent availability of
            limited duty work assignments'' for all AOC employees partially
            disabled on the job (not to exceed 120 days);
      --Deployed a new Workers' Compensation Tracking System (WCPS) which
            provides managers, supervisors, HRMD, Safety, and the Attending
            Physicians Office immediate access to all new injury and
            illness claims and injury data;
      --Implemented more effective techniques (question and answer
            handouts, fact sheets and hands on meetings and briefings) for
            educating AOC employees, supervisors and managers about safety
            awareness; and
      --Staffed our workers' compensation program office with an employee
            relations specialist with an occupational nurse background to
            support the AOC's efforts in facilitating the injured workers'
            prompt return to work.
        Accomplishments achieved in the Program:
      --Reviewed 396 workers' compensation injury and illness claims;
      --Returned 93 employees back to limited duty work assignments;
      --Discovered 9 overpayment cases where erroneous compensation and
            medical payments were made;
      --Returned 14 employees to full-duty from our short-term and long-
            term OWCP periodic rolls;
      --Reviewed 101 cases on our long-term periodic rolls;
      --Requested OWCP's intervention in 20 periodic cases for either
            rehabilitation, re-employment or reduction of benefits; and
      --Requested 15 workers' compensations be administratively reviewed by
            OWCP.
        In addition, during the next several months we will develop an
    automatic tracking system for the Early Return-to-Work Program and
    review our long-term OWCP periodic rolls cases for possible re-
    employment within or outside the AOC.
        We have demonstrated the credibility of this approach on dealing
    with job related injuries and illnesses. We saw a slight reduction in
    our fiscal year 1998 lost time rate despite an increase in our total
    injury rate. Our continuing efforts show our commitment to use all
    available resources to reduce work-related injuries and illnesses and
    reduce lost workdays incurred.

                          CAPITOL COMPLEX FIRE SAFETY

        Senator Bennett. Now, one last item: There has been a lot
    of publicity about Capitol fire safety. I have taken a tour of
    some of the areas that have been identified as having safety
    problems; and frankly, if we were to solve the problem with
    safety as our only criteria, we would probably have every
    historian in the country come down on us with great fire, if
    you will, of a different kind because we would destroy the
    ambiance of the Capitol.
        It was built in the days long before OSHA, and there are
    spaces in the Capitol that are soaring and majestic, and yes,
    they could become conduits for heat in case of a fire, but to
    shut them off with fire doors would, in the attitude of many
    people, be a desecration.
        So, I understand the difficulties that you face dealing
    with the fire issue, and at the same time, not bricking up
    architectural areas of the Capitol that have that visual impact
    and create the sense of awe that clearly was in the minds of
    the original architects of the Capitol when they created those
    spaces.
        Can you comment on where you are on that, and what impact,
    if any, the visitor's center might have on questions of safety
    or----
        Mr. Hantman. Clearly----
        Senator Bennett (continuing). Crowd control and so on, in
    case of a fire?
        Mr. Hantman. May I first report to you, Mr. Chairman, that
    the Compliance Board just had their annual inspection in the
    Senate office buildings, and they found no violations.
        That does not mean that we do not have work to be done;
    that means that we are working on them. They understand that we
    have plans in place and that we are moving in the proper
    direction.
        We have a team leaving tonight to go out to Ohio.
    Interestingly, just before the State of the Union Address,
    Senator Voinovich and I were talking about life safety issues.
    Roll Call had just come out with an article about life safety
    on Capitol Hill.
        And he made the statement that most people do not recognize
    the difficulties in retrofitting older buildings, landmark
    buildings. As you are probably aware, he had been Governor of
    Ohio before he became----
        Senator Bennett. Right.

                               LANDMARK BUILDINGS

        Mr. Hantman (continuing). Senator. And he indicated that
    their State house building, some 400,000 square feet in size,
    was renovated over a period of years. There were many years of
    planning.
        Then he, as Governor, vacated half of the building for a
    period of 3 years while they renovated it. And then the senate
    and the house vacated the other half of the building for
    another 3 years to renovate the other part of it. And they were
    very concerned and sensitive to the issues that you raise.
        They have monumental stairs; they have domes; they have
    issues that really give you the sense of government, of
    presence, of pride, that people would have in a State
    government as we do have in our Government here at the Capitol.
        So, we are going to be learning. We are going out there
    tomorrow to talk about what they have accomplished; how they
    solved the problems of monumental stairs without carving them
    up and putting sheetrock walls in front of them, things of this
    nature.
        This is a moving target, Mr. Chairman. This is the NFPA,
    National Fire Protection Association Journal of January and
    February of this year. There is a statement by the president,
    George Miller, which talks about the meetings they had in
    November of last year.
        And as a result of that meeting, their fall meeting, they
    adopted NFPA 101 life safety code, making it the first NFPA
    document to fully incorporate a complete performance based
    approach.
        The keyword here is ``performance'' as opposed to
    ``prescriptive,'' because if you look at the codes today, Mr.
    Chairman, you would be walling up all of the major rotundas,
    the open monumental stairs, things of that nature.
        So, the national codes are recognizing that there have to
    be solutions, certainly in landmark buildings to code issues
    that are not destructive of those landmark buildings. That is
    what we are hoping to learn, not only at Ohio, but looking at
    codes that Pennsylvania, that Texas, that Washington State also
    have incorporated for that.
        So, we are--on the House side, we have a lot to accomplish;
    on the Senate side, as well, but we are pretty far along over
    here. The Dirksen Office Building, once we finished our
    renovations, the end of next calendar year, December of 2001,
    virtually all the life safety and security issues will be
    incorporated there, aside from a couple of issues that we need
    to continue to address.
        In the Russell Building, we are very much ahead on that
    basis, also. The first four floors are totally complete, smoke
    detectors, alarms, sprinklers. We are removing the old pull
    stations over there now. We still have the attic and the
    basement to be done. So, it is a balance of what we need to do.
        Now we want to treat the Hart Atrium in a sensitive way, as
    well. When you have tall spaces such as that space, or the
    Capitol Rotunda, sprinklers do not work from the top. They just
    dissipate. They do not react in an appropriate way.

                          CURRENT FIRE SAFETY SYSTEMS

        But it is interesting to also relate to--we had a fire over
    the weekend, on Friday night, in the Cannon Office Building,
    the sister building to the Russell. Systems worked. Somebody
    had disposed of smoking materials in a wastepaper basket. The
    detectors went off. The sprinklers went off.
        And we had our redundant system, which is our police
    officers walking through the halls. They had also detected it,
    almost simultaneously. It was out and under control in 10
    minutes.
        So, we have more work to be done. Our base systems need to
    be upgraded, and we are working on that. We are working on
    plans. We are going to be calling in the National Institute of
    Science and Technology to look at how best to have plans
    basically that will not destroy the architecture, will not
    destroy the sense of our buildings. And they are very willing
    to do that, and we are working on that very actively.
        We have in our budget now many projects for study, as well
    as implementation, on the life safety area, both the Senate and
    the House side, and in the Capitol as well.
        One of the issues in the Capitol, of course, is how to
    upgrade that while it is in full use. The issue of
    accessibility, as discussed with Senator Voinovich, is really a
    major one. I am sure that we are not about to vacate the
    Capitol and go through the process of doing a 3-year
    renovation.
        So we will have to do it in pieces, as leadership makes the
    space available to us, and that will take us longer. But we are
    trying to put in intermediate and short term solutions such as
    rather unsightly battery emergency packs for lighting, for
    instance, until we design the full system, run the conduit,
    hook it up to emergency generators, and chase the walls where
    we need to run the conduit. That will take longer.
        So we put in intermediate fixes, which are not ideal and
    hopefully they will not become long-term fixes because funding
    will not be available to implement it. But we are trying to
    balance, strike the balance between giving ourselves the
    ability to control life safety to the greatest extent possible.
        We have been installing, as you know, emergency egress
    doors in the Capitol that never existed before. The entire west
    front had no doors that swung in the right direction, had panic
    hardware, had alarms. We have seven doors that have now been
    totally reconstructed in an appropriate manner for the United
    States Capitol. And we are working on that with many other
    projects.

                         STATURE OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX

        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you, and I appreciate your
    sensitivity to that. I think that our children, in my case
    grandchildren now, would be very poorly served if they were to
    lose the sense of stature and destiny that the people who
    created the Capitol in the first place had.
        This is a monumental city. I do not know of any other city
    where the city planners would create something like The Mall,
    that much open space just for the sake of open space, to say,
    ``Here we are, a significant people, a significant Capitol'';
    the Union Station, and the approach of Union Station to the
    Capitol, created at a time when Union Station was the only way
    you could get to Washington, and the sense of grandeur that
    came about with this. It is most appropriate, I think, for a
    nation as significant as this one.
        And if in the name of some statistically possible, but
    unlikely, emergency, we chop it all up, I think we take
    something away from our posterity and their sense of what they
    have inherited in this nation.
        So, I applaud you in your effort to see to it that the
    Capitol is not chopped up in that fashion.
        I look at the Library of Congress. I remember the first
    time I stepped into what is now called the Jefferson Building.
    The hallways were filled with office barriers and wires taped
    to the floor, so the telephones would work in the cubicles. And
    I had no sense at all of what that building really was.
        And I walk it in now, and go down those open corridors and
    see the mosaics on the ceiling and all the rest of it, and I
    practically expect to see Theodore Roosevelt walk around the
    corner, because here is a statement of what America was at the
    turn of the last century, and an exuberant, physical
    manifestation of how we felt about ourselves and our future.
    And I think that is a history lesson that everybody ought to be
    able to receive when they walk into that building.
        So, with that, I apologize for rattling on. I just thank
    you for your sensitivity to the challenge that we have here. I
    have no further questions.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Thank you very much for your testimony. And we will examine
    the details of your request with great care. And I will be
    available in working with you to follow-up on Senator
    Mikulski's concern.
        Mr. Hantman. I look forward to that, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you very much.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
        Question. What was the financial status of the Senate Restaurants
    in fiscal year 1999? What do you project for profits or losses for
    fiscal year 2000, and 2001?
        Answer. The information follows.

                                       SENATE RESTAURANTS KEY FINANCIAL INDICATORS
                                            [Fiscal Year Operating Statement]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              2000          2001
                                                    1998          1999        Variance      Projected     Projected
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Revenues..................................    $7,788,589    $8,395,246      $606,657    $8,475,686    $8,010,000
    Loss from Sales...........................    -1,263,797      -678,539       585,258      -705,240      -915,000
    Employee buy-out..........................      -753,282       -57,731       695,551  ............  ............
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Net Operating Inc...................    -2,017,079      -736,270     1,280,809      -705,240      -915,000
    Appropriated funds........................     1,433,000       750,000      -683,000       750,000       750,000
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Net Income..........................      -584,079        13,730       597,809        44,760      -165,000
                                               =====================================================================
    Year End Balance Sheet:
        Assets................................       767,011     1,148,856       381,845     1,150,000       950,000
        Liabilities...........................    -2,050,418    -1,528,533       521,885    -1,278,000    -1,243,000
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Equity..............................    -1,283,407      -379,677       903,730      -128,000      -293,000
                                               =====================================================================
    Economic Dependency:
        Transfers of Appropriations...........     1,433,000       750,000      -683,000       750,000       750,000
        Net Loan Proceeds.....................        65,000      -540,000      -605,000      -250,000      -200,000
        Increase In Appropriated Capital......       210,000       890,000       680,000  ............  ............
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Direct Support................     1,708,000     1,100,000      -608,000       500,000       450,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. On page 1 of Appendix ``D'' to the Architect's testimony
    submitted to the Subcommittee for purposes of this hearing, reference
    is made to the Office of Compliance's Annual Report to Congress, dated
    January 2000, which provides statistical information regarding employee
    complaints during calendar year 1999. It is noted in the report that,
    of the 330 covered employees of the Legislative Branch who filed
    requests for counseling with the Office of Compliance last year, 311
    were complaints filed by AOC employees.
        Without disclosing confidential information with regard to specific
    AOC employee grievances, could your office provide the Subcommittee
    with additional information regarding the types of complaints that make
    up the 311 requests for counseling, and whether your office has
    identified any pattern of non-compliance by the AOC in certain areas?
        What steps have been taken at both the top management and middle
    management levels to address the overall human resource management
    problem reflected in the report by the Office of Compliance?
        Answer. As noted in Appendix D, an employee who wishes to allege
    violations of the CAA may request counseling and mediation from the
    Office of Compliance. Individuals who wish to file such requests need
    not put in writing, or prove, any allegations during formal counseling,
    mediation or before entering the formal litigation process. At
    mediation the AOC must be ready to respond to any employment-related
    matters, including discrimination, wage and hour and family leave
    issues, or other workplace issues, without regard to the legal merits
    of claims. The CAA and the Office of Compliance procedural rules
    require that all mediation and formal hearing proceedings are strictly
    confidential and require parties sign agreements to that effect.
        Initially, as stated above, the Congressional Accountability Act
    provides that requests for counseling are strictly confidential. Thus,
    the AOC has no knowledge of the substance of any of these requests for
    counseling reported in the Office of Compliance Annual Report. The
    Office of Compliance does not notify the AOC when a Request for
    Counseling is filed; the Office of Compliance does not permit the AOC
    to have or even to see any written submission from the employee. We do
    not have the information on the substance of any of the Requests for
    Counseling reported on by the Office of Compliance. With regard to
    mediation requests, the Office of Compliance regularly counsels
    employing offices, including the AOC, that they may be subject to
    sanctions for breaching the strict confidentiality. For these reasons,
    we suggest that you to contact the Office of Compliance for further
    information on the cases on file there.
        It is important to emphasize that neither the Office of Compliance
    nor any third party determines whether there is any merit to charges
    that may come from filings of Requests for Counseling by individuals
    under the CAA. It is only if and when these matters come before a
    district court or an Office of Compliance hearing officer that the
    merits of the allegations are examined. In each case that has reached
    that stage in the federal district court, the AOC has prevailed. Again,
    strict confidentiality applies in actions before the Office of
    Compliance hearing officers.
        Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude, as your question
    indicates, that the mere filing of these actions naming the AOC as the
    employing office indicates the existence of an ``overall human resource
    problem'' that calls for action.
        The AOC Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) regularly
    addresses any human resource problems that come to our attention in our
    day-to-day operations, including outreach to managers and supervisors
    in specific problem areas. Our human resources specialists, as well as
    managers and supervisors in the jurisdictions, have been active in
    addressing problems that we know to exist, which admittedly are
    numerous and quite challenging. The HRMD also frequently works
    individually with employees on individual problems.
        Question. On page 3 of Appendix ``K'' of the Architect's testimony,
    there appear to very large increases projected in the Capital Budget
    for the out-years of 2002 and 2004. This time next year, we are looking
    at triple the amount of money? Why are there such large increases in
    fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2004?
        Answer. The AOC's Capital Budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
    $68.7 million. In the Five-Year Capital projection, projects totaling
    $181.1 million and $221.6 million have been identified for fiscal years
    2002 and 2004 respectively. Some of the more significant projects that
    account for the increase in fiscal year 2002 include the Rehabilitation
    of the Capitol Dome $38.8 million, Renovation of the Senate Garage
    $10.8 million, Construction of an Off-Site Delivery/Screening Center
    $7.5 million, Optimization of Chilled Water Distribution System $5.6
    million, $5 million each for the Installation of Sprinklers in the
    Capitol, Power Plant Chiller Replacement, and Emergency Operations for
    HVAC Systems in the Capitol, $4.5 million each for Upgrading the Cable
    Television System and Repairing Failed Waterproofing Over ST-71, $4
    million each for Upgrading Building Systems in the Capitol and
    Upgrading the Book Conveyor System at the Library, Book Storage Module
    No. 2 $3.6 million and the installation of a Human Resources
    Information System $3 million. Some of the more significant projects
    that account for the increase in fiscal year 2004 include the
    Construction of a Garage on Square 724 $26 million, Replacement of
    Windows in the Capitol, Russell and Cannon Buildings $48.3 million,
    Construction of a Capitol Police Command Center $14.1 million,
    Upgrading Building Systems in the Capitol $10 million, Repairs to the
    House East and West Underground Garages, Construction of a Copyright
    Deposit Facility for the Library, Repairs to the Domestic Water System
    in the Cannon Building $8.8 million, Replacing Heating Piping in the
    Longworth Building $8.3 million, Replace the Russell-Capitol Subway $6
    million, and $5 million each for the Installation of Refuge Areas in
    the House Office Buildings, Upgrading the HVAC in the Rayburn and the
    construction of a Thermal Storage Facility.
        The above listing of projects reflects identified work that will
    need to be funded. Projects have been reflected in the above fiscal
    years based on current information as to the need of the work and
    projected completion of design. As the design progresses and more
    information is available, each project will be reevaluated in terms of
    priority of the project, its cost and the amount of work that can be
    realistically funded and implemented by this office in any given year.
        Question. On page 4 of Appendix ``K'' in the category of Cyclical
    Maintenance, there again seem to be extremes in these projections. One
    might think that ``cyclical'' maintenance would remain somewhat
    consistent from year to year. But, the figures you show for these out-
    years are up and down. Is that efficient, to have huge amounts one year
    for cyclical maintenance; then have it drop dramatically the following
    year; then jump back up the next year?
        Answer. It is best to keep the agency's workload relatively
    constant. However, there is not a direct correlation between funds
    requested and workload during that fiscal year. For work performed by
    contract, the total funding has to be available to make the award. For
    the larger projects, such as the Renovation of the Capitol Dome, it
    will take more than one year to complete the work. Because of the time
    required to advertise, award and mobilize the contractor the majority
    of the work may actually be accomplished during the following years. As
    indicated in the proceeding question, all future projects will be
    reviewed and where possible the requests will be spread out to avoid
    significant fluctuations in funding requirements and to stabilize our
    workload.
        Question. The AOC's budget request is projecting some of the
    custodial services to be contracted to an outside company in the coming
    year. I understand that some of the custodial tasks in some areas of
    the complex are already being contracted out. Now, the AOC is
    recommending that more of these custodial jobs be contracted out. If we
    currently have in-house staff performing these tasks, why is the AOC
    shifting to a contractor to perform work? Is it more efficient to do
    that?
        What will happen to the employees who have been performing these
    custodial tasks; will they be reassigned?
        Answer. The Architect of the Capitol presently cleans the following
    facilities via contract: Ford House Office Building, Postal Square,
    Webster Hall Page Dormitory and School, and Senate Employees Child Care
    Center (new facility).
        It is being proposed that the custodial maintenance of Capitol
    Police Headquarters be cleaned by an outside contractor beginning in
    fiscal year 2001. This building has been cleaned by in-house custodial
    workers since 1988 when the building was renovated as the central
    headquarters for the U.S. Capitol Police.
        A review of our cleaning program indicates that the Day Cleaning
    Branch of the Day Labor Division is presently short of personnel and
    has no relief crew, which is a need recognized by management. A relief
    crew is comprised of custodial workers who ``fill in'' for absent
    custodial workers. When employees are absent for training, when they
    are sick and when they are on vacation, their assignment must be
    accomplished by relief workers. It is estimated that the average in-
    house employee is absent in excess of 20 percent of the time for such
    entitlements.
        In this case, if the cleaning of Capitol Police Headquarters is
    accomplished by a contractor, it will enable the transfer of
    approximately five custodial workers, thereby enabling the creation of
    a relief crew for the cleaning crew assigned to the Hart, Dirksen and
    Russell Buildings. This will provide additional cleaning capability in
    the buildings and it will allow greater cleaning consistency.
        Given the need for additional cleaning personnel in the Day
    Cleaning Branch, it becomes apparent that additional cleaning personnel
    would have to be hired straight out as full time government employees,
    as one solution. Alternatively, as illustrated in this case, the hiring
    of a contractor to clean the Capitol Police Headquarters frees up
    veteran cleaners to augment our existing cleaning force.
        The choice to clean Capitol Police Headquarters using a contractor
    is based on several factors. It is not a legislative building,
    providing an opportunity to minimize the potential cleaning costs by
    adjusting cleaning schedules. The competition of this requirement
    should also minimize the cost to the government. Moreover, success has
    been experienced in the contracts cited above in consideration of
    cleaning quality and cost.
        Research has revealed that the building management industry as well
    as government agencies such as the General Services Administration have
    come to rely upon contract cleaning as the primary vehicle for building
    cleaning, nationwide. The nature of this industry has revealed that it
    is a competitive business that can best be managed by supervisors and
    managers associated more with the cleaning industry than the building
    management industry.
        Employees assigned to clean Capitol Police Headquarters will be
    reassigned, as previously described, when this facility is cleaned via
    contact.
        Question. The Conference Report on H.R. 1905, the Fiscal Year 2000
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, directed the Architect of the
    Capitol to provide the Librarian of Congress with a reasonable,
    effective and efficient plan of action to correct identified hazards
    and deficiencies with respect to fire safety. Has the Architect's
    office had any feedback from the Librarian as to whether the Library of
    Congress is satisfied with the AOC' fire safety plan?
        Answer. To date the Library of Congress has indicated in their
    opinion the plan is incomplete without definite start and finish dates.
    Several of the projects contained in the plan are currently unfunded
    which causes the project time lines to show start and stop durations
    rather than actual start and stop dates. Additional concerns expressed
    by the Library, are available resources and deployment of those
    resources, which again will be determined by the funding process. They
    have accepted the list of identified items but have not worked with the
    Architect to develop priorities. In summary they acknowledge the need
    to complete the plan but they do not agree with the proposed
    implementation process.
        Question. Last year, there were a number of problems that delayed
    the AOC's completion of the Senate Employees Child Care Center. There
    were environmental concerns with mold, which had to be remediated,
    creating significant delays. Additionally, there were other
    circumstances that slowed down the construction project even more, such
    as leaking windows, electrical wiring problems, and vendor delays in
    delivery of products. The Center's Board and staff were assured by the
    Office of the Architect on a number of occasions that completion was
    only a matter of weeks, or days away, only to be told at the last
    minute that the deadline would, again, not be met.
        Due to the numerous delays in completion of the project, the Child
    Care Center had to absorb a number of expenses which it could not
    subsequently recoup through its normal income from student enrollment.
    These unfortunate circumstances placed the Center at great financial
    risk during the last few months of 1999. I understand that the Center
    has now been reimbursed for most of those expenses; but that does not
    diminish the fact that the Center was forced to bear an unnecessary
    financial burden for a number of months.
        Subsequent to completion of the SECCC project, has the AOC reviewed
    the project deficiencies with the contractor who performed the work on
    the Child Care Center? And, has the AOC reviewed this project with its
    in-house staff to see what might be done differently with future
    construction projects?
        Answer. During the final phases of construction, various members of
    the AOC staff and the Architect discussed the lack of performance with
    the principles of the construction company joint venture. In addition
    there have been several letters from the AOC discussing the poor
    performance of the contractor.
        As was discussed in greater detain in Appendix J of the Architect's
    opening statement submitted for the record, the AOC has initiated a
    complete review of the project delivery process and has conducted a
    ``peer review'' of the construction management system. The in-house
    staff has participated fully in these best practices studies that were
    conducted by two outside consultants. Based up on the consultants
    findings, the AOC is now implementing recommended changes to strengthen
    all phases of the project delivery process. The new process will
    provide for improved planning, stronger design control, increased
    coordination with customers, development of AOC project standards and
    guidelines, improved use of design consultants, expanded construction
    contracting methods, better reporting tools and improved construction
    management processes. Finally the AOC is conducting a formal lessons
    learned review under the direction of the Assistant Architect and the
    AOC Inspector General to review the specifics of the SECCC. The AOC
    Inspector General is also performing a complete review of the entire
    project from start to finish.

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GENE DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
            RICHARD BROWN, CONTROLLER
            SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF MISSION SUPPORT OFFICER

                              PRAISE FOR Y2K WORK

        Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Mr. David Walker, the
    Comptroller General. He is joined by Gene Dodaro, who is the
    Chief Operating Officer; and Richard Brown, the Controller; and
    Sallyanne Harper.
        I do not have your title, Ms. Harper.
        Ms. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I am the Chief Mission Support
    Officer.
        Senator Bennett. We are delighted to have you all here. The
    fact that the crowd all left indicates, I think, that you do
    not have as controversial a budget request as the one that
    preceded you, and that is probably a good thing.
        We want to thank you, Mr. Walker, both as this committee
    and personally in my role as Chairman of the Senate Special
    Committee on the Year 2000 Problem, which chairmanship expires
    at midnight tonight, so I have just a little while longer.
        But I want to thank you for the GAO employees that you
    detailed to our committee. They were absolutely outstanding.
    They have professional qualities that would make them
    outstanding employees of any organization anywhere. And the GAO
    employees who were not detailed, but who responded to requests
    for GAO audits, were equally professional. We, as a nation,
    would not have achieved the non-event of Y2K if we had not had
    the GAO.
        Over and over again, when we would get initial reports from
    Government agencies, the GAO would go in, conduct the audit,
    and we could then say authoritatively to the agency, ``You are
    still not where you say you are. You are not there. You need to
    do it in this area, that area.''
        And the GAO reports were always on time. They were always
    insightful. They were always very accurate. And we get no
    thanks for this. If anything, the reaction of part of the press
    has been, ``Well, you wasted all our time and money. Look,
    nothing happened.''
        As I said on the floor yesterday, it is a little like Bob
    Hope, who, when he went out to entertain the troops at
    Christmas time complained, he said, ``The Army uses me like a
    pincushion and fills me full of shots. And it is completely
    ridiculous, because I have never gotten sick at all on any one
    of these trips.''
        But whether we get the kind of press thanks that we might
    want or not is immaterial. The fact is that the country went
    through what could have been a disastrous experience without
    much of a ripple, and your agency is very much responsible for
    that. And I want to publicly acknowledge that.
        Now, you have requested $402,918,000, a $24,132,000
    increase, which is 6.4 percent. We will be happy to hear your
    explanation of that budget, and appreciate your being here.

                            SUMMARY OF GAO Y2K WORK

        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very
    much.
        First, let me acknowledge at the outset that I consider
    myself fortunate to be head of the GAO. We have a number of
    outstanding individuals, not only the ones that were detailed
    to you, but the approximately 3,000 that provided support one
    way or another.
        Let me also say that I think we always have Monday morning
    quarterbacks who speculate about what would have happened had
    we not taken certain actions. I personally think that the Y2K
    area is an example of a very positive effort by Government, in
    both leadership and management.
        It shows what Government can do when it focuses on a major
    challenge, and the impact that can be had. Not only the
    executive branch, but the legislative branch took it very
    seriously as well.
        We started first with the Federal Government. We then went
    to State and local governments. We then went to the entire
    economy. Ultimately we had an impact on the entire world. And
    you and I know, Mr. Chairman, that Lord knows what would have
    happened had we not taken it as seriously as we did.
        In addition, we both know that while considerable time and
    effort was spent on it, and substantial resources, both
    financial and human capital, there are benefits that we will be
    reaping for years to come from the enhanced hardware and
    software applications at all levels of our economy.
        And I think that this is clearly an example of our
    Government doing something right. And frankly, we need more of
    these successes to try to help improve the public's confidence
    in and respect for their Government.

                    GAO ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1999

        If I can, Mr. Chairman, very briefly I want to touch on a
    couple of accomplishments in 1999, a few initiatives and then
    our request.
        I am pleased to say that in 1999, we had, I think, a very
    good year. The bottom line is we achieved $20.1 billion in
    financial benefits for the American taxpayer. That is a return
    on investment of $57 for every dollar invested in GAO. We also
    were able to make a contribution in a number of areas, Y2K
    being an important one.

                               GAO STRATEGIC PLAN

        With regard to fiscal 2000, we have a major strategic
    planning effort that we have been coordinating with the
    Congress. We expect to finalize that effort within the next
    month. We have published some proposed Congressional protocols
    about how we determine our priorities, how we allocate our
    resources, and what our obligations are to Congress, our
    client, to make sure that we are delivering quality services on
    time, consistent with our core values, applicable professional
    standards, and our statutory mission.
        We announced a restructuring of our field offices on
    February 3, in order to try to improve our economy, efficiency,
    and effectiveness within existing resource levels. We are in
    the process of realigning our headquarters organization to
    support the strategic plan, and to maximize our economy,
    efficiency and effectiveness.

                           GAO ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

        We are in the process of publishing our first
    accountability report, which I expect will be a model for
    others to follow. We believe it is important, Mr. Chairman,
    that since we are the leading Federal accountability
    organization in the United States, to recognize that we have a
    responsibility to lead by example. We should be as good or
    better than anybody that we review in every area, and we are
    committed to doing that.
        We have a number of major initiatives underway in the area
    of human capital; an area that, quite frankly, we are at risk.
    And I will come back to that in a minute.

                      HIGHLIGHTS OF HUMAN CAPITAL REQUEST

        In our fiscal 2001 budget request, we are not requesting an
    FTE increase. Last year I committed to you, and to the House,
    that we would not request any additional personnel until we
    have taken all the actions that we think are prudently
    appropriate within our existing resource allocations to be able
    to get the job done.
        We have a number of actions underway and contemplate
    others, and so therefore, we are not asking for any additional
    FTEs. We are asking, basically, for inflation, to maintain
    purchasing power and several limited and targeted investments
    in two areas.
        First, human capital: People are our most important asset.
    People are what we need in order to deliver service to the
    Congress and to the nation. Frankly, we are 39 percent smaller
    today in head count than we were in 1992. And it is not just
    the fact that we are smaller; it is how we got to where we are.
        The agency took some steps in the 1990's that, quite
    frankly, will enable us to get our job done today, but that put
    us at risk of not being able to get our job done tomorrow. We
    need to take a number of critical actions today, such as
    enhancing training, and providing additional recognition
    rewards to put us on a level playing field with the executive
    branch and that are based upon results. We need to modernize
    our performance appraisal systems so they are focused on
    supporting our strategic plan, and generating results for the
    Congress and the American people.
        So, we have requested some targeted, modest investments in
    the human capital area, for training, performance appraisals,
    and performance awards.

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUEST

        In the IT area, we have designed our disaster recovery
    plan. Now we need to implement it.
        Second, we need to upgrade to more modern versions of some
    of the basic software like Office 2000, in order to operate
    efficiently and maintain support from the vendors. We have some
    applications that, quite frankly, are either no longer being
    supported or will not be supported very much longer, and it is
    important that we be prepared for that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your consideration of our
    request, and I am more than happy to answer any questions that
    you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of David M. Walker

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
    appear before you today--about 16 months after becoming the seventh
    Comptroller General of the United States--to present the U.S. General
    Accounting Office's (GAO) fiscal year 2001 budget request. GAO is a
    great agency. We had an excellent year in fiscal year 1999 and are on a
    similar path for fiscal year 2000. GAO has never been more important
    than today, given the increasing complexity, the increasing
    interdependency, and the multidimensional nature of the challenges that
    face the Congress and the nation. There is no other organization better
    prepared to help the Congress address the full range of important
    national issues than GAO.
        Maintaining and enhancing GAO's preparedness to serve the Congress
    in today's complex and rapidly changing global environment, however,
    presents its own challenges. As a result of a tremendous amount of due
    diligence over the past year, we identified a number of issues that, if
    not addressed, could place GAO at risk of being unable to continue
    serving the Congress effectively. We are 40 percent smaller today than
    in 1992, and congressional demands for our services have increased, a
    trend we anticipate will continue. At the same time, given the
    continued interest in fiscal restraint, we cannot expect to receive
    significant increases in financial resources beyond inflation or in the
    level of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff currently authorized.
        Recognizing the strong likelihood of constrained resources and
    increasing client demands, we must begin doing things differently in
    order to continue to effectively serve the Congress, both today and in
    the future. We must take steps to maximize our effectiveness; manage
    risks; and optimize staff productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness.
    During the past year, we initiated a number of efforts to begin
    addressing these challenges. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request
    continues down this path toward strengthening GAO, so that we can
    continue to effectively meet the demands and expectations of the
    Congress and remain an important asset to Members as they address the
    current and future needs of the American people.

                        FISCAL YEAR 1999 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Before I begin presenting the challenges confronting GAO and what
    we are doing, and need to do, to address them, I want to briefly
    summarize some of our achievements during the past year. GAO continues
    to provide the Congress and the American people a tremendous return on
    their investment. In fiscal year 1999, for every $1 invested in GAO, we
    helped the Congress and the agencies produce about $57 in financial
    benefits, or about $20.1 billion in total. These financial benefits
    were achieved through actions taken by the Congress and federal
    departments and agencies that led to budget reductions, avoided costs,
    deferred appropriations, or additional revenue collections. As
    illustrated in the following graphic, the return on the nation's
    investment in GAO for the past 3 years has averaged $20.2 billion.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.005

        GAO's work and recommendations resulted in greater returns on the
    sale of federal assets, increases in net tax revenue, savings from a
    more efficient government, and decreased federal spending from
    reductions in current and future budget authority. For example, in
    1995, GAO testified that the U.S. Treasury would receive a greater
    return if the government sold, rather than continued to operate, the
    U.S. Naval Petroleum Reserve in Elk Hills, California. Based on
    subsequent assistance that we provided the Congress and efforts to
    ensure that the government received a maximum return on the sale, the
    reserve sold for about $1.5 billion above the minimum asking price.
        Also, based on options we presented, the Congress changed the
    earned income tax credit law in 1996 by adding wealth, capital gains,
    and income tests to the program's eligibility criteria. This led to the
    federal government avoiding payment of about $1.3 billion in earned
    income tax credit benefits. In addition, about $609 million was saved
    in the Department of Defense's fiscal year 1999 military personnel
    budget as a result of several opportunities that GAO identified in
    which the military personnel budget could be reduced without
    compromising our overall readiness.
        In addition to the financial benefits resulting from our work, we
    were instrumental in bringing about over 600 needed improvements in the
    effectiveness and efficiency of government operations and services. Our
    recommendations led to increased readiness in the public and private
    sectors for the year 2000 computing challenge, better public safety and
    consumer protection, more efficient and effective government operations
    and services, better assessments of program results, and enhanced
    computer security.
        For example, we contributed greatly to reducing the federal
    government's vulnerability to the year 2000 computing challenge. We
    worked closely on this issue with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Senate
    Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem that you chaired;
    the House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
    Management, Information, and Technology; the House Committee on
    Science, Subcommittee on Technology; and the President's Council on
    Year 2000 Conversion. As a result of our research and development
    efforts to identify and help the Congress address emerging issues, we
    identified the year 2000 computing issue as a high risk area for the
    federal government in February 1997. Our series of guides prepared to
    help organizations address Y2K challenges, assistance provided to the
    Congress and federal agencies, and over 150 reports and testimonies
    helped ensure that the federal government was better prepared to
    transition into the 21st century and avoid serious disruption in
    services to the American public.
        We also made important contributions in the information security
    area. This work included (1) identifying the extent of the problem and
    inherent risks faced by key government agencies, (2) identifying ``best
    practices'' and developing guidance that can be adopted by government
    entities to better protect their information assets, and (3) supporting
    congressional initiatives to develop effective legislation.
        Other areas of improvements stemming from GAO's work include the
    Social Security Administration (SSA) commencing several initiatives to
    reduce overpayments in the Supplemental Security Income program as a
    result of the numerous reports we issued on the program. One such
    initiative is SSA expanding its use of online data to better verify
    recipient financial information and prevent program overpayments.
        Our work also has contributed to improving public safety. Our
    series of Medicaid-related reports, highlighting the disturbing
    frequent extent of poor quality care that results in harm to nursing
    home residents, led to enhanced oversight of nursing homes by the
    Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and some states. For
    example, in response to our recommendations, HCFA announced a set of
    nursing home initiatives, including establishing a requirement that
    states investigate serious complaints alleging harm to residents within
    10 days.
        In the consumer protection area, we reported on the prevalence and
    costs of identity fraud. Identity fraud involves the illegal use of
    another person's identifying information, such as their name, social
    security number and date of birth, to commit financial crimes ranging
    from the unauthorized use of a credit card to a comprehensive takeover
    of financial accounts. Relying on the results of our study, the
    Congress enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act,
    which specifically criminalized the theft and misuse of personal
    identifying information and provided legal recognition of the victims
    of identity theft.
        Additional examples of the financial benefits and improved
    government operations and services achieved through GAO's work are
    included in our budget submission.
        Our audit and evaluation products included over 900 recommendations
    to improve the management and efficiency of government operations and
    programs. Seventy-seven percent of our key recommendations over the
    last 4 years were implemented by the end of fiscal year 1999. The
    average implementation rate for the past 3 years has been 74 percent,
    as illustrated in the following graphic.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.006

                             CHALLENGES FACING GAO

        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we invested in a tremendous
    amount of due diligence in fiscal year 1999 to identify ways to enhance
    our effectiveness, efficiency, and services to the Congress. Before and
    after my confirmation in November 1998, I personally met with key
    congressional leaders and many other members and staff, as well as GAO
    staff, to obtain their views and perspectives about GAO and to identify
    areas in which we could strengthen our operations and services to the
    Congress. I will continue to do this throughout my tenure. In addition,
    we examined our human capital profile to identify opportunities to
    strategically rebalance and strengthen our human capital assets in
    order to maintain the readiness, flexibility, and productivity
    envisioned in the statutory mission of GAO. More recently, a survey of
    GAO employees was completed, the results of which will be used to
    identify additional opportunities to strengthen GAO's economy,
    efficiency, and effectiveness.
        We identified a number of challenges that must be addressed in
    order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our services to
    the Congress in the 21st century. The most important and most urgent of
    these challenges is making necessary changes to our human capital
    management practices.

    Human Capital Imbalances

        Our current human capital profile has succession planning,
    structural, and skill imbalance issues that we need to address.
    Succession planning is a major human capital issue that we must
    address. Nearly 34 percent of our evaluator and related staff will be
    eligible to retire by the end of fiscal year 2004. In addition, about
    55 percent of our senior executives and 48 percent of our management
    evaluators will become eligible to retire by that time. Other critical
    positions, such as attorneys, criminal investigators, and mission
    support, are also vulnerable.
        Another human capital issue is more structural in terms of
    staffing. As illustrated in the following graphic, we are sparse at the
    entry-level--a result of the 5-year hiring freeze we began in 1992 to
    downsize and later continued to achieve mandated funding reductions.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.007

        Maintaining proper skills is another issue that needs to be
    addressed. The development and training of our senior executives in key
    competencies, such as leadership, communications, project supervision
    and conflict resolution, have remained at a drastically reduced level
    since fiscal year 1993. In addition, new technical skills unavailable
    in needed quantities within the agency, especially actuarial and
    information technology skills, will be needed to effectively assist the
    Congress in meeting its oversight responsibilities.

    Increasing Congressional Demands

        At the same time we are facing several human capital challenges,
    congressional demand for our services remains at record levels. The
    Congress continues to turn to GAO for assistance on significant issues
    facing the nation. As illustrated in the following graphic,
    congressional requests and mandates for GAO services have increased in
    recent years.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.008

        During fiscal year 1999, we were called upon to testify 229 times
    before 93 congressional committees or subcommittees. Additionally, we
    were requested to provide 22 statements for the record. Examples of the
    issues and topics covered in our testimonies that have assisted the
    Congress in its decision-making and oversight responsibilities include
    our performance accountability and high risk series that depict major
    management challenges and program risks facing the government's major
    departments and agencies, Social Security reform proposals, financial
    and operational aspects of the International Monetary Fund, DOD's
    anthrax vaccination program, and Medicare reform. As illustrated in the
    following graphic, the number of testimonies we provide fluctuates
    annually, depending upon congressional activity. Over the past 3 years,
    we have averaged about 222 testimonies a year.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08FE29.009

                     INITIATIVES UNDERWAY TO STRENGTHEN GAO

        We began a number of initiatives this past year to address the
    challenges facing GAO and to further enhance our organization and
    services to the Congress. One of our first initiatives was to establish
    GAO's core values--accountability, integrity, and reliability. These
    core values describe what we do, how we do it, and how we want our work
    to be received. Other key efforts started this past year have been
    focused on client relations; developing a strategic plan; and
    strengthening our communications, human capital, information
    technology, job processes, and organizational alignment. Let me briefly
    summarize some of these key efforts for you.

    Client Relations

        We have initiated a client outreach program to assist GAO and the
    Congress in understanding how best to meet congressional needs and use
    our resources and services. During each Congress, we plan to meet with
    the Senate and House leadership, all Committee Chairs and Ranking
    Minority Members, and members of our appropriations and oversight
    committees to obtain feedback on our performance and to help develop
    future work plans.
        Through consultation with key congressional leaders, members, and
    staff, we also have developed a set of clearly defined, well documented
    and transparent protocols, intended to be consistently applied in
    setting priorities, allocating resources, and serving our client--the
    Congress. These protocols will be used to help determine resource
    allocations, guide interactions with the Congress, and ensure our
    accountability to the Congress. We began implementing these protocols
    in January of this year and will test them throughout the Congress
    until August 2000. We will finalize them by October 2000. We also are
    exploring efficient ways to obtain systematic client feedback from
    appropriate members and key staff.

    Draft Strategic Plan

        We are working with the Congress to craft the first strategic plan
    for the 21st century, covering fiscal years 2000 through 2005. This
    draft plan sets forth the issues around which we need to focus and
    develop our resources to effectively serve the Congress over the next 6
    years. The plan, developed after extensive consultation with
    congressional members and staff, as well as GAO staff, is rooted in the
    reality that the vast majority of our resources are devoted to
    responding to requests from committees and statutory mandates. It also
    contemplates investing limited resources in important discretionary
    research and development work to identify and help the Congress address
    emerging issues facing the nation and its citizens before the issues
    reach crisis proportions. We plan to issue our strategic plan in the
    spring of this year.
        As illustrated in the attachment to my statement, our plan is
    designed around four strategic goals:

      --Help the Congress and the federal government address current and
            emerging challenges to the well-being and financial security of
            the American people;
      --Help the Congress and the federal government respond to changing
            threats to national security and the challenges of global
            interdependence;
      --Support the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable
            federal government; and
      --Maximize the value of GAO by providing timely, quality service to
            the Congress while being a model organization for the federal
            government.

    Communications

        We also have taken numerous steps to strengthen communications
    within the agency. Since taking office, I have visited all of our field
    offices, conducted numerous internal staff meetings, and held quarterly
    agency-wide videocasts to keep people apprised of key initiatives
    underway and planned within the organization, as well as to respond to
    their questions. To date, the topics covered in the videocasts have
    included our draft strategic plan and congressional protocols; client
    service initiatives; employee survey results; initiatives to enhance
    our human capital programs, work processes, organizational alignment,
    and information technology; field office review initiative; and other
    areas of interest to GAO staff.
        We established a Comptroller General Employee Advisory Council with
    which I will meet every quarter to discuss current and emerging issues
    of mutual interest and concern. In addition, a new employee suggestion
    program has already led to several recommendations that have enhanced
    GAO's operations. World-class organizations like GAO need to tap
    regularly into the ideas and ingenuity of their staff to continuously
    improve their economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. We will continue
    to strive to do so.

    Human Capital

        We need to invest more heavily in our people--our greatest asset.
    Targeted investments need to be made in our training, performance
    rewards and incentives, and performance appraisal systems. In addition
    to examining our human capital profile, we have begun efforts to
    strengthen and redesign our performance appraisal system to better
    assess employee strengths and weaknesses, identify training needs, and
    reward and recognize exceptional performance, and to improve
    performance at all levels. This effort began in fiscal year 1999 and
    will continue over the next 2 years. We have revised our fiscal year
    2000 performance standards to incorporate our core values and strategic
    goals; updated descriptions of performance to better reflect the
    current nature of our work; and other key concepts, such as leadership-
    by-example, client service, measurable results, matrix management, open
    and constructive communication, and balancing people and product
    considerations. We also are in the process of identifying best
    practices with respect to performance appraisal systems in both the
    private and public sectors, with a goal of implementing a new
    performance appraisal system for our evaluators beginning in fiscal
    year 2001, but no later than fiscal year 2002.
        Efforts also are underway to develop a skills inventory system that
    will be used to identify skill gaps, training, and succession planning
    needs, both at an institutional and individual level, and to staff
    assignments more effectively. We will continue to correct skill gaps
    and maximize staff productivity and effectiveness through training. To
    maximize this investment, we are reviewing and updating our training
    curriculum to address organizational, behavioral, and technical needs
    of our staff. Other efforts to enhance our human capital profile
    include re-energizing and modernizing our recruitment and college
    relations programs, enhancing our performance rewards program to help
    ensure our ability to attract and retain high quality staff with
    specialized skills, and reshaping our succession planning program.

    Information Technology

        During fiscal year 1999, we replaced obsolete hardware and software
    agency-wide to help ensure the efficiency and effectiveness in our
    operations and enhance our productivity. In addition, we took steps to
    stabilize and improve the responsiveness of our network. Also, to help
    ensure continuity of our business operations and services to the
    Congress, we focused resources on ensuring that our mission critical
    systems were Y2K compliant and crafting necessary business continuity
    and contingency and ``Day-One'' plans.
        Now that the Y2K challenge has been successfully met, we must begin
    addressing other technological issues--not just ensuring that we have a
    stable and responsive system. We need to put enabling technology in the
    hands of our staff so that we can be more efficient, effective, and
    timely in responding to the needs of the Congress. We are planning to
    conduct a comprehensive review of our information technology in fiscal
    year 2000 to identify additional opportunities to increase our
    efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. In addition, for fiscal
    year 2001, we plan to upgrade our network software and information
    technology systems that support our assignment tracking process and
    disaster recovery capability.

    Job Processes

        Several changes already have been made to our job processes that
    have expanded the use of risk-based approaches to managing our jobs and
    products, while reducing administrative burdens and ensuring
    involvement of all subject and technical experts. For example, two new
    forums were established for management to review all new requests and
    the progress of ongoing jobs. A weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting
    involving top management was created to review all new congressional
    requests, mandates, and division proposals for research and development
    assignments to determine if the work should be done, which skills are
    needed to do the work, and, based on risk, the appropriate level of
    involvement by the Office of the Comptroller General. We believe that
    this approach will reduce the levels of review and streamline the job
    process to improve the timeliness of our engagements and related
    products. Subsequent to the Engagement Acceptance Meeting, biweekly
    Engagement Review Meetings are held to discuss progress on high/medium
    risk assignments and upcoming reports for each operating division.
    Another initiative that has contributed to enhancing our job processes
    includes our strategic planning effort, which has led to the
    identification of four strategic goals and 21 related strategic
    objectives to help us better support the Congress as it serves the
    needs of the American people. Other efforts are underway to further
    review our job processes with the goal of expanding the use of matrix
    and risk management principles in order to increase our institutional
    timeliness, efficiency, capacity, flexibility, and impact.

    Organizational Changes

        During this past year, we merged our Offices of Policy and the
    Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and Reporting into an Office
    of Quality and Risk Management. This new office was established to
    ensure that our work effectively and efficiently supports the Congress,
    and meets professional standards and our core values. It also will
    focus additional attention on quality assurance and risk management
    involving our products, and to improve our job processes. In addition,
    the management responsibilities of our field operations was moved from
    the Office of the Assistant Comptroller General for Operations to a new
    Assistant Comptroller General for Field Operations. This new position
    was created to ensure that our field offices and their employees are
    effectively represented at the executive level and to strengthen field
    office representation, communication, and participation within the
    organization.
        Other initiatives are underway to realign our headquarters and
    field office organizational structures in order to support our
    strategic plan and improve GAO's efficiency, effectiveness, and
    flexibility. We recently announced decisions related to our field
    office structure and are in the process of deciding upon a headquarters
    realignment and other related decisions that will be implemented within
    a reasonable timeframe. We will implement these realignments within our
    existing resource levels. However, as outlined below, we will be
    seeking your support and assistance in getting legislation enacted that
    will better enable us to efficiently and effectively manage our human
    capital within existing FTE allocations and constrained financial
    resource levels.

     LEGISLATION NEEDED TO HELP INCREASE GAO'S EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

        As noted above, we plan to address many of the human capital
    imbalances identified above through management improvement initiatives
    rather than by requesting additional FTEs. However, to facilitate
    implementing our human capital initiatives and effectuate the needed
    realignment of the agency, we will be seeking legislative authority
    that will provide additional flexibility in managing our human capital.
    This additional flexibility is critical in order to ensure that GAO is
    in a position to effectively serve the Congress in the future and
    minimize the need to request additional financial resources or FTE's.
        The legislation we are seeking would authorize us to offer early-
    outs to selected individuals. This authority contrasts with Office of
    Personnel Management rules in which early-out offers can be made only
    to groups of similarly situated employees in a downsizing or major
    reorganization. The legislation also would provide relief from applying
    certain reduction-in-force provisions that could result in an even more
    unbalanced workforce than exists today and a consequent, detrimental
    impact on our ability to serve the Congress. I want to stress that our
    proposal would maintain the statutory preference for veterans and that
    we have no intention of de-emphasizing our attempts to attain and
    maintain a high quality and diverse workforce. Also, to provide us
    greater ability to attract and retain technical talent, we will be
    seeking authority comparable to that of the executive branch to
    compensate selected scientific and technical staff at senior executive
    pay levels. We would use such authority, if granted, sparingly to
    address specific targeted needs, such as information technology
    specialists and actuaries. We will shortly be sending you and other
    appropriate congressional committees a letter requesting the
    legislative authority discussed above.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $402,918,000 in budget
    authority to permit us to maintain current operations while we continue
    to realign the organization to better serve the Congress. We are not
    seeking additional full-time equivalent staff.
        Our funding level increase will provide for the following:

      --$16,264,000 to cover mandatory pay and benefits costs resulting
            primarily from federal cost-of-living and locality pay
            adjustments (based on Office of Management and Budget
            guidance), increased participation in the FERS retirement
            system, and an increase in the estimated number of retirees;
            and
      --$1,082,000 to cover uncontrollable price-level increases in
            transportation, lodging, printing, supplies, contracts, and
            other essential mission support services, based on OMB's 2-
            percent inflation index.

        We also plan to continue the initiatives we began in fiscal year
    2000 to restructure the agency to support our goals of improving
    service to the Congress. These initiatives include realigning
    organizations to increase our flexibility and support broader and more
    diverse issues and objectives, reengineering work processes, and making
    further technological advances to maximize our responsiveness to
    congressional needs. The requested increase for these changes includes:

      --$776,000 to increase funding for our performance rewards and
            recognition program to pre-downsizing per capita level, and to
            achieve more comparability between GAO and the executive branch
            compensation systems to help ensure our ability to retain,
            attract and reward high quality staff based on their skills and
            performance;
      --$1,500,000 for organizational, behavioral, and technological
            training, to increase our staff productivity and effectiveness;
            to support the draft strategic plan; and to address skills gaps
            identified in the planned skills inventory;
      --$250,000 to reengineer our non-evaluator performance appraisal
            system to incorporate best practices. Performance appraisal
            systems are a key component in assessing employee strengths and
            weaknesses, training needs, and rewards and recognition; and
      --$2,485,000 to upgrade network software used to carry out our work
            processes to the support the Congress and to revamp information
            technology systems that support the engagement tracking process
            and disaster recovery facility. The network currently operates
            Windows 95 and MS Office 97 as the primary operating and
            applications software. In order to maintain vendor support and
            upgrades, we need to upgrade to the current versions, Windows
            2000 and Office 2000. Our assignment tracking system was
            developed in-house over 2 decades ago and is obsolete and
            incapable of interfacing with its network environment. Also, as
            the next stage in the disaster recovery planning process, we
            need to implement a solution that ensures our network data can
            be archived and retrieved at alternate sites to ensure timely
            accessibility in the event of disaster.

        As in prior years, we are requesting authority to use anticipated
    revenue from audit work at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
    and rental income from our future building tenant, the Army Corps of
    Engineers, to continue asbestos removal and offset building renovations
    and maintenance costs. Also, due to diminished value over the last 10
    years, we are seeking a nominal increase in the amount authorized for
    representation expenses of the Comptroller General to adjust for
    inflation and accommodate a higher volume of strategic planning and
    engagement execution meetings with heads of audit agencies from other
    countries.

                                  CONCLUSIONS

        GAO is a professional services organization and the leading
    accountability organization in the United States and, possibly, the
    world. As the nation's leading accountability organization, we should
    lead by example and be world class at everything we do.
        However, to effectively fulfill the responsibilities this
    leadership position demands, both now and in the future, we need to
    address the challenges that I discussed today. We will implement many
    of our initiatives to address these challenges without requesting
    additional FTEs or financial resources beyond inflation. However, we
    need the assistance and support of this Committee in getting
    legislation enacted that will provide us the flexibility we need to
    better manage our human capital. Otherwise, we will be at risk of not
    being able to effectively serve the Congress in future years.
        This concludes my statement. I would be please to answer any
    questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                         RECOGNITION OF COMMITTEE STAFF

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I note that two
    members of the Y2K staff, who become yours as of midnight
    tonight, go back to you, have entered.
        And maybe, Tanya and John, you could stand up just so
    that----
        Mr. Walker. You were trying to be discreet.
        Senator Bennett. They----
        Mr. Stephenson. My daughter----
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Mr. Walker. It did not work though.
        Senator Bennett. John has acted as the deputy staff
    director, and Tanya is our general counsel. I called the
    Attorney General seeking a lawyer, and she said she could not
    find a lawyer anywhere in the Justice Department who could be
    spared. And I am delighted that she could not, because we got
    Tanya instead and she has been terrific.
        So, you were not here when I made the appropriate comments
    about GAO, but you can read them in the record.

                            CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER

        I assure you both, they were very nice.
        The Architect of the Capitol testified before you, and we
    talked about issues relating to how the Capitol is kept open
    for tourists as a part of their historic experience and
    teaching experience when they come to Washington.
        We are clearly moving in the direction of the Capitol
    visitors center for a whole series of reasons, security being
    part of it. Now, the GAO has got a lot of experience with new
    building projects, and I think can be very helpful to the
    Architect of the Capitol, and the Congress if this moves
    forward.
        Could you explain, for the record, GAO's role in the
    visitors center project and what you see down the road with
    respect to that?

                           GAO WORK ON PLANNED CENTER

        Mr. Walker. We are doing work, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
    with regard to the design and engineering phase of the Capitol
    center. I would like to turn it over to Gene Dodaro to give you
    a little bit more detail, because he has been intimately
    involved in this.
        Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, we have put together a multi-
    disciplinary team and have engaged the assistance of the Army
    Corps of Engineers to look at the design phase of the project.
    We are going to be looking at the estimated costs, both of
    constructing the center and operating it as well as estimated
    revenue from sales.
        We are going to be following the project management of the
    Architect of the Capitol to bring in a construction management
    firm. We also are going to be auditing the expenditures against
    the appropriate budget amounts that are allocated for the
    visitors center.
        We consider this to be an important role. We are geared up
    to follow the visitors center project for the next 5 years
    until it comes to fruition. To date, we have been looking at
    the design aspects of it, and we will follow it through the
    individual phases.
        Currently, we have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to
    prepare an independent Government estimate for the next phase
    of the project, and they are in the process of completing that
    estimate now so that the Architect can have it, and the
    Congress and the various committees, can benchmark it against
    the estimated cost submitted by RTKL.
        We are going to be meeting soon with staff from all the
    requestors from the Capitol Preservation Commission to outline
    our project plan for monitoring the visitors center project as
    it proceeds through the subsequent phases. Please be assured
    that we know this is important, and we are going to be focusing
    on it very closely.

                        REQUEST FOR EARLY-OUT AUTHORITY

        Senator Bennett. You have requested early-out and buy-out
    authority. How would you implement this authority, how many
    positions would be affected, and who would be replaced and so
    on? You just touch on that area.
        Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we expect to transmit legislation
    to the Hill within the next week. We are in the process of
    trying to finalize it now.
        As you know, it is very important that we coordinate with
    our authorizing and oversight committees in conjunction with
    this matter.
        As noted in my testimony, the consequences of how we went
    about achieving the downsizing have not only left us smaller,
    which obviously would be the case, but also out of shape. What
    we need to do is make sure that we have got the right skills in
    house and the right organizational shape, so that we not only
    can get our job done today, but get it done in the future.
        I expect that we will use this early-out and potential buy-
    out authority, if we are granted it, in order to target
    voluntary early-outs and voluntary buy-out options to better
    align the skills of the organization with what we need for the
    future, rather than the skills that we may have needed in the
    past, and to try to help us get a little bit more leverage. By
    that, I mean more people that are doing the work versus people
    that are leading and managing and supervising the work.
        I think it is very important, frankly, not only for us but
    Government as a whole, that if we want to maximize our
    performance and assure our accountability, and if we want to
    minimize the resources that we are going to come to you and
    other appropriators and ask for, we have got to have a
    reasonable degree of flexibility in order to be able to make
    human capital decisions based upon institutional needs.
        This would build on our strategic plan, which we
    coordinated closely with the Congress in developing, to put in
    place the proper balance of individual skills and performance
    while maintaining veterans preference, having zero tolerance
    for discrimination, and trying to achieve a diverse workforce.
    But right now, we do not have as much flexibility as we need.
        I think that this legislation will enable us to help to get
    where we need to be without asking for more money, and without
    asking for additional FTEs.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I have no further
    questions. Again, thank you for all you do, and we appreciate
    your testimony.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My pleasure.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

        Question. GAO is seeking authority to use $1.9 million in receipts
    from rental income from the Army Corps of Engineers. Please update the
    Committee on the status of the renovation project and the Corp's plans
    to move to the GAO building.
        Answer. Floors one, two, four, five, seven, and 50 percent of the
    sixth floor have been renovated. The third floor will be renovated and
    available for occupancy by the Army Corps of Engineers this summer.
    Infrastructure improvements and the remaining half of the sixth floor
    will be renovated in future years using rental income.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Question. The General Accounting Office is requesting that Congress
    provide additional legislative language giving GAO more flexibility
    with respect to how it manages its human capital. Is there such a
    shortage of highly trained or specialized people in the workforce that
    you feel it has become necessary to include incentives other than what
    GAO currently offers its employees in order to attract and keep the
    best employees?
        Answer. The narrowly-tailored requested authority would enable the
    Comptroller General to better prepare GAO to meet the increasingly
    complex and multi-dimensional needs of the Congress in the most
    efficient, effective and economical manner. This authority would
    provide the Comptroller General the flexibility to realign GAO based on
    the agency's mission needs and draft strategic plan, in such areas as
    staff skills, performance, and knowledge. This additional flexibility
    is critical to help ensure that GAO is in a position to effectively
    serve the Congress in the future and minimize the need to request
    additional financial resources or FTEs.
        The proposal includes the authority to offer early-outs or buy-outs
    to selected individuals, concurrent with relief from certain reduction-
    in-force (RIF) provisions. The statutory preference for military
    veterans would remain unchanged. Current RIF provisions could result in
    an even more unbalanced workforce than currently exists at GAO and
    impair our ability to retain highly trained, experienced, or
    specialized staff. The proposed legislation to create a new technical
    supergrade position within existing overall supergrade slots would help
    enhance GAO's ability to attract and retain technical specialists, such
    as experts in information technology, telecommunications, statistics,
    and actuarial sciences, who are in high demand in the commercial
    sector. The proposal would provide GAO the ability to compensate a few
    selected scientific and technical staff at pay levels commensurate with
    the executive branch. In addition, the proposal would provide GAO more
    discretion in determining merit pay increases based upon performance.
        Question. The Comptroller General is limited to 15 years service in
    his position at the General Accounting Office, and would become
    eligible for federal retirement at the completion of those 15 years,
    regardless of any previous service elsewhere in the Federal Government.
    Is there a similar situation for the Deputy Comptroller General?
        Answer. A Comptroller General may elect to participate in a
    retirement system established for the Comptroller General under 31 USC,
    chapter 7, or the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) or the
    Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), depending upon prior federal
    service. No similar situation exists for the Deputy Comptroller General
    who has the same options as other federal employees covered by 5 USC.
        Question. In early February, the Comptroller General notified
    Members of Congress that GAO was planning to close several field
    offices later this year, as part of its overall realignment of the
    organization. In that regard, can you provide for the record a
    breakdown of how many people would be affected in each of those
    regional offices slated to be closed?
        Answer. GAO's realignment includes actions targeted at both its
    Washington headquarters and field office structure. Eight of GAO's
    existing 16 field offices are affected by the realignment. The Kansas
    City, Portland, Raleigh, Sacramento and St. Louis offices will be
    closed effective November 4, 2000. The Dayton, Huntsville, and Norfolk
    offices will be retained, but ``rationalized'' both as to size and
    facilities over time. The field office restructuring affects about 8
    percent of GAO's total workforce. The related staff resources within
    these offices will be reallocated to better support GAO's draft
    strategic plan; increase critical mass in selected locations; and
    enhance GAO's organizational flexibility. GAO is in the process of
    deciding upon a headquarters realignment and other related decisions
    that will be implemented within a reasonable timeframe.
        The following table lists the field location and the number of
    staff affected in each location.

                                                                   Number of
            Field Location                                    Affected Staff

    Rationalize:
        Dayton........................................................    40
        Huntsville....................................................    26
        Norfolk.......................................................    71
                                                                      ______
          Subtotal....................................................   137
                            =================================================================
                            ________________________________________________
    Close:
        Kansas City...................................................    61
        Portland......................................................    16
        Sacramento....................................................    14
        St. Louis.....................................................    15
        Raleigh.......................................................     8
                                                                      ______
          Subtotal....................................................   114
                            =================================================================
                            ________________________________________________
          Grand Total.................................................   251

        Question. What plans has GAO made to assist these displaced workers
    in finding suitable placement elsewhere within GAO, such as,
    transferring to either headquarters in Washington, or to other field
    offices not slated for closing?
        Answer. Closure of the five field offices will not occur until
    November 4, 2000. The intervening 9-month period between the
    announcement and the closure should allow staff in these offices
    sufficient time to make the best decisions for themselves and their
    families. About 50 percent of the staff in these offices will be
    eligible for full or early retirement by November 4, 2000. All staff in
    the closing offices are being provided an opportunity to apply for a
    transfer to Washington or selected field offices (i.e. Atlanta, Boston,
    Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle).
    Selections will be based on our institutional needs along with each
    individual is respective skills, knowledge and performance. Individuals
    selected for transfer will receive the standard relocation expense
    reimbursement. Outplacement assistance is available to individuals who
    do not retire or transfer. All individuals in the affected offices will
    be able to remain with GAO until the office closes.
        We would like the ability to keep a few evaluators with needed
    skills at appropriate site locations in one or more of the local
    markets in which our offices will be closing. However, our current
    legal authority does not enable us to do so in a manner that will match
    institutional needs with individual skills, performance and knowledge.
    As a result, we are seeking legislative authority to provide some
    additional flexibility.
        Question. What are the possibilities for these displaced workers
    being able to transfer to a job in the field office of another agency
    under either the Executive Branch or Judicial Branch of the Federal
    Government? If, for example, an employee, who is being displaced by the
    closure of GAO's field office in Sacramento, applies for a vacancy in
    the field office of another federal agency in the Sacramento area, or
    some other location in the State of California, would any special
    consideration be given by the other agency to that particular
    applicant's situation? Are there currently any HR regulations that
    would either allow or disallow such special consideration for displaced
    federal workers, regardless of which branch of government employs them?
        Answer. GAO staff have no entitlement to priority consideration or
    placement in other federal agencies. However, staff who have
    competitive status (i.e., one year of continuous service under a non-
    temporary appointment and were appointed on or after October 1, 1980,
    or were employed by GAO prior to that date when GAO was in the
    competitive service) can be hired by other federal agencies without
    competing with members of the general public.

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    STATEMENT OF RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GARY GREEN, GENERAL COUNSEL
            PAMELA TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE
            JAMES STEPHENS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HOUSE
            BETH HUGHES-BROWN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Bennett. All right. Our last witness is Mrs. Ricky
    Silberman, the Director of the Office of Compliance.
        The Office of Compliance has requested $2,095,000, a
    $95,000 increase, or 4.8 percent; and requested a reduction of
    2 FTEs from their authorized level of 17. That is not a pattern
    that we usually see here, and we commend you for continuing to
    look for ways to reduce your budget and hold on to your
    efficiency.
        We would be happy to have you introduce this gentleman. I
    apologize for not knowing in advance your name, but we are
    delighted to have you both here.
        Mrs. Silberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to present the Office of Compliance budget request
    for fiscal year 2001.
        With me, as in past years, are the statutory appointees,
    the full-time leadership of the Office. This is Gary Green, the
    General Counsel of the Office who runs the legal affairs of the
    Office as well as the health and safety program, which has been
    so much a part of what we have done in the past year.
        Senator Bennett. We welcome you, Mr. Green.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        Mrs. Silberman. Also with us is Pam Talkin, the Deputy
    Director for the Senate, and Jim Stephens, Deputy Director for
    the House, and Beth Hughes-Brown who is our Administrative
    Officer and who works very closely with the committee.
        And in line with your remarks previously, Mr. Chairman, I
    think Beth deserves special recognition for her role,
    particularly in the area of Y2K legislative branch readiness.
    And we are very grateful for your leadership in that area as
    well.
        On behalf of all of us, I want to thank the Chairman and
    the staff of the committee, in particular Christine Ciccone,
    without whose support and assistance the record of
    accomplishment of this office would not have been possible.
        This is the fifth year, that as Chief Operating Officer of
    the Office of Compliance, it has been my privilege to present
    this testimony.
        And as you noted, it is the first year that we have had to
    ask for an increase. In our 1997 budget request, which was our
    first full year of operation, nobody had any idea what it was
    going to cost to run this office, and we just had guesstimates,
    which everybody helped with.
        And it was very interesting that we were pretty much on the
    mark. But in the years since, on the basis of actual
    experience, we have been able to consolidate duties and reduce
    the expenditures for funding full-time staff positions, which I
    think is the key to our efficiency and effectiveness.
        Thus, in each successive year, the budget request of the
    Office of Compliance has decreased. We have always asked for
    less money than the year before, and our appropriation has
    decreased. That is, until this year. And this year, for the
    2001 budget request of $2,095,000, we, as you noted, have asked
    for a very small increase of $95,000 from our fiscal year 2000
    appropriation.
        And I just want to take a couple of minutes to explain why
    we need this increase. I am sure these reasons are all very
    familiar. Everybody says they need it. And I was interested to
    hear the Comptroller General talking about human capital,
    because our increase is almost totally in the area of
    contractor costs and mandatory costs that we have little or no
    control over.
        And that increase is also in addition to the fact that we
    have asked for a decrease of two FTEs, which will realize a
    savings of some $113,000 in salaries and benefits. We have done
    that by combining the duties of the office's Director of
    Education and Information with those of the office's second
    counselor. And we have also eliminated an administrative staff
    position with associated duties absorbed by other staff
    members.
        That savings, however, is totally offset by an increase in
    overall personnel costs. With respect to salaries, we are
    projecting a 3.7 percent cost of living increase, which is
    commensurate with the increase proposed for other Federal
    Government employees.
        I think perhaps the most interesting increase is in the
    area of the Board of Directors over which we have absolutely no
    control. We have not had a full complement of five Board
    members in the past year. There have been two vacancies. And by
    May of the year 2000, the terms of all five original Board
    members will have expired, and we will have a full complement
    of five Board members. They have already all been appointed.
    Three have already come on board, and two will come on board in
    May.
        Only two of the original five Board members lived outside
    Washington, D.C. We have now four of five living outside
    Washington, D.C., and we have to get them here. There are
    travel expenses that have to do with Board meetings and that
    kind of thing.
        And then the other area which is, I believe, also
    absolutely mandatory is in the area of alternative dispute
    resolution. We need to continue the success that we have
    achieved in the area of alternative dispute resolution, which
    is the way that we resolve the majority of the disputes arising
    under the majority of the laws that the Congressional
    Accountability Act enforces.
        Since January 23, 1996, when the office officially opened
    for business, the vast majority of disputes have been
    satisfactorily resolved through this system of counseling,
    mediation and adjudicative hearings. And from the beginning, we
    have outsourced those mediations.
        We have been fortunate to retain some of the nation's most
    respected mediators to perform this function, and they have
    done an absolutely splendid job; so, too, the hearing officers,
    which as statutorily mandated, are generally retired Federal
    judges or senior status judges.
        In both of these categories, we, for the first time in 5
    years, have had to ask for an hourly increase in their rates.
    They have been working under their usual rates for 5 years, and
    this budget reflects an increase which totals $38,300, which is
    $17,000 for hearing officers, $20,000 plus for mediators, and
    $900 for court reporters. This will bring them in line with
    what other Government agencies have been paying them.
        And let me make just one final note with respect to
    contractor costs. Since it is difficult to accurately predict
    the requirements, both in terms of time and expertise, of the
    office's safety and health program, we will continue to
    contract for the services of expert consultants on an as-needed
    basis. The fiscal year 2001 budget is predicated on fiscal year
    1999 actual levels for these consultants. It is what we have
    actually paid for them.
        As this committee is aware, this past year has been one of
    intense activity in the health and safety area, particularly
    with respect to fire safety, necessitating a projected increase
    in the fiscal year 2001 budget of $33,000.
        These are very small amounts of money, but they are amounts
    of money that we absolutely have to have in order to continue
    the program in the way that we are doing it.

                                 OSHA DETAILEE

        I should note here that the office continues to benefit
    from the full-time services of an industrial hygienist on a
    non-reimbursable basis from OSHA. And we have been very
    fortunate to be able to have this extra FTE. His work is
    essential to the effectiveness of the health and safety
    program, and if the arrangement with OSHA were to be
    terminated, a full-time salaried slot would have to be
    dedicated to this function.
        Finally, an increase of $6,000 for printing is based on
    fiscal year 1999 actual expenditures for the publication of
    mandated health and safety reports to the Congress.
        We have attached the 301(H) report, which is the report
    that compiles statistics on the use of the office by covered
    employees, and we would ask that it be put in the record. It
    reports the calendar year of 1999.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And I want to again thank you for all of your help and
    support, and we would be delighted to answer any questions that
    you have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Ricky Silberman

        Thank you for the opportunity to present the Office of Compliance
    budget request for fiscal year 2001. With us, as in past years, are the
    statutory appointees--the full-time leadership of the Office: Pam
    Talkin, the deputy executive director for the Senate, James Stephens,
    the deputy for the House, and our General Counsel Gary Green. Beth
    Hughes-Brown, our administrative officer, has once again worked closely
    with this committee and deserves special recognition for her leadership
    role. On behalf of all of us, I want to thank the Chairman and the
    staff of this committee, particularly Christine Ciccone, without whose
    support and assistance the record of accomplishment of this Office
    would not have been possible.
        This is the fifth year that, as 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,'' since no one could accurately predict how much it
    would cost to administer and enforce the CAA. But in the years since,
    on the basis of actual experience, we have been able to consolidate
    duties and reduce the expenditures for funding full-time staff
    positions. Thus, in each successive year the budget request of the
    Office of Compliance decreased, as did our appropriation.
        That is, until this year. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request of
    $2,095,000 is an increase of $95,000 from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation of $2,000,000. I want to take a couple of minutes to
    explain why this increase is necessary even though we are again
    planning to reduce full-time staff. In keeping with the Office's goal
    of efficient, effective administration, the duties of the Director of
    Education and Information are being combined with that of the Office's
    second counselor. An administrative staff position is also being
    eliminated, with associated duties absorbed by other staff members.
    This consolidation and the resulting reduction of two FTE's from 17 to
    15 will realize a savings of $90,000 in salaries and $23,000 in
    benefits.
        That savings, however, is offset by an increase in overall
    personnel costs. With respect to salaries, we are projecting a 3.7
    percent cost of living increase which is commensurate with the
    increases proposed for other federal government employees. We also
    project increases in travel expenses for new members of the Board of
    Directors. By May of 2000, the terms of all five original members of
    the Board will have expired and five new members will have been
    appointed. While only two of the original five Board members resided
    outside the Washington, DC area, four of the five new members do, and
    will thus incur travel expense to attend Board meetings. The salary,
    benefits, and travel expenses are therefore expected to increase for
    Board members, by $29,000, $2,000, and $6,000, respectively.
        One other area of increase is necessary to continue the successful
    administration of the eleven labor and employment laws applied by the
    CAA. To resolve disputes arising under the majority of these laws, the
    Act mandates an administrative and judicial alternative dispute
    resolution (ADR) procedure which has proved both cost-effective and
    efficient. Since January 23, 1996 when the Office officially opened for
    business, the vast majority of disputes have been satisfactorily
    resolved through this system of counseling, mediation, and adjudicative
    hearings. From the beginning, we determined that the credibility of
    this core ADR function would best be established and maintained if the
    mediators had the same independence which the Act mandates for hearing
    officers. We were fortunate to secure the services on an as-needed
    basis of some of the nation's most respected mediators as well as
    retired or senior status judges. This budget request includes an
    increase, the first in five years, in the per hour compensation of
    hearing officers, mediators and court reporters. These increases which
    total $38,300 ($17,000 for hearing officers, $20,300 for mediators, and
    $900 for court reporters) are based on our current use of their
    services, and bring their per hour rate in line with what other
    government agencies are paying for these same services.
        One final note with respect to personnel costs. Since it is
    difficult to accurately predict the requirements both in terms of time
    and expertise of the Office's safety and health program, we will
    continue to contract for the services of expert consultants on an as-
    needed basis. The fiscal year 2001 budget is predicated on fiscal year
    1999 actual levels for these consultants. As this committee is aware,
    this past year has been one of intense activity in the health and
    safety area, particularly with respect to fire safety, necessitating a
    projected increase in the fiscal year 2001 request of $33,000. I should
    note here that the Office continues to benefit from the full-time
    services of an industrial hygienist, on a non-reimbursable detail from
    OSHA. His work is essential to the effectiveness of the health and
    safety program and if the arrangement with OSHA were to be terminated,
    a full-time salaried slot would have to be dedicated to this function.
    Finally, an increase of $6,000 for printing is based on fiscal year
    1999 actual expenditures for the publication of mandated health and
    safety reports to the Congress.
        Each year, the Office, is required to compile statistics on the use
    of the Office by covered employees. We have provided the Committee with
    copies of this newly published 301(h) report on calendar year 1999 and
    would ask that it be included in the record. We would be delighted to
    try to answer any questions you may have.

      Office of Compliance Section 301(h) Report to Congress--January 1,
                             1999-December 31, 1999

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) generally applies
    provisions of eleven federal labor and employment laws to over 20,000
    covered congressional employees and employing offices. The Office of
    Compliance (Office), an independent agency in the legislative branch,
    was established by the CAA to administer and enforce the Act and
    provide a process for the timely and confidential resolution of
    workplace disputes. Section 301(h) of the CAA requires that the Office
    of Compliance:

              * * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office
            by covered employees, including the number and type of contacts
            made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts, on the
            number of covered employees who initiated proceedings with the
            Office under this Act and results of such proceedings, and on
            the number of covered employees who file a complaint, the basis
            for the complaint, and the action taken on the complaint.

        This fourth annual report, which provides information for the
    period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, begins with a
    summary of the authority and responsibilities of the Office of
    Compliance.

              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

        The CAA establishes the Office of Compliance with a Board of five
    members, who serve on a part-time basis, and four statutory appointees:
    the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate,
    Deputy Executive Director for the House, and the General Counsel. The
    Office is charged with providing alternative dispute resolution
    procedures, and adjudicative hearings and appeals for covered
    legislative branch employees and education and information on the CAA
    to members of Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the
    legislative branch. The Office of the General Counsel enforces the
    provisions of sections 210 and 215, relating to health and safety and
    public access requirements, including investigation and prosecution of
    claims under these sections, and periodic inspections to ensure
    compliance. Additionally, the General Counsel investigates and
    prosecutes unfair labor practices under section 220 of the CAA.
        The CAA applies the rights and protections of provisions of the
    following eleven labor and employment statutes to covered employees
    within the legislative branch: title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; title I of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Fair Labor
    Standards Act of 1938; the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988;
    the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act; chapter 43 of
    title 38 of the U.S. Code (relating to veterans' employment and
    reemployment); the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to
    public services and accommodations; the Occupational Safety and Health
    Act of 1970; and chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to
    federal service labor-management relations).

             FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1999-DECEMBER 31, 1999

    Number of Contacts Received by the Office of Compliance: 482

        Employees and employing offices may, at any time, seek informal
    advice and information on the procedures of the Office and the rights,
    protections, and responsibilities afforded under the CAA. The office
    responds to all inquiries on a confidential basis.

        482 requests for information from covered employees, employing
    offices, the public, unions, and the press were made by phone and in
    person from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. Contacts were as
    follows:

    Employees.........................................................   296
    Employing offices.................................................   102
    Public............................................................    64
    Unions............................................................    12
    Press.............................................................     8
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................   482

        623 calls were made to the Office of Compliance Recorded
    Information line. In addition, the Office of Compliance website proved
    to be a frequent and efficient means for covered employees, covered
    employing offices and the general public to access information on the
    CAA.

                         REASONS FOR EMPLOYEE CONTACTS

        296 covered employees contacted the Office asking questions under
    the following sections: (note: Aggregate numbers will not necessarily
    match category totals as a single contact may involve more than one
    section or subsection of the CAA, and/or more than one issue or alleged
    violation.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section                       Description                       Contacts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil         168
            Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
            Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
            1973, and title I of the Americans with
            Disabilities Act of 1990
        202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical          33
            Leave Act of 1993
        203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor                  68
            Standards Act of 1938
        204Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph   .........
            Protection Act of 1988
        205Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment            2
            and Retraining Notification Act
        206Rights and protections relating to veterans'                  4
            employment and reemployment
        207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal                      29
        210Rights and protections under the Americans with       .........
            Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public
            services and accommodations; procedures for remedy
            of violations
        215Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety          6
            and Health Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of
            violations
        220Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States          12
            Code, Relating to Federal service labor-management
            relations
        N/AQuestions regarding the general application of the          110
            CAA
        N/AQuestions on matters which were not cognizable under         45
            the CAA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The 296 employee contacts were for information regarding:

    Assignments.......................................................    12
    Compensatory time off.............................................     4
    Compensation......................................................    16
    Demotion..........................................................     1
    Discipline........................................................     1
    Equal pay.........................................................     1
    Evaluation........................................................     3
    Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.....................     3
    General questions regarding statutory requirements................    85
    Harassment........................................................    12
    Hiring............................................................    16
    Hours of work.....................................................     6
    Injury............................................................     1
    Leave.............................................................    18
    Leave eligibility.................................................     1
    Overtime pay......................................................    19
    Promotion.........................................................     4
    Reasonable accommodations.........................................     8
    Recordkeeping.....................................................     1
    Termination.......................................................    68
    Terms and conditions of employment................................    32
    Requests for written materials....................................    11

    Number of Proceedings Initiated by Covered Employees: 330

        Pursuant to title IV of the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides
    dispute resolution in the form of counseling and mediation. A
    proceeding under the CAA is initiated by an individual employee's
    request for counseling alleging a violation of the CAA.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ It should be noted that the alleged unlawful application of a
    single policy of an employing office may involve multiple individual
    claims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        330 employees from the following employing offices filed formal
    requests for counseling:

    The Architect of the Capitol......................................   311
    Capitol Guide Service...................................................
    Capitol Police....................................................     3
    Congressional Budget Office.......................................     1
    House of Representatives (not member or committee offices)........     3
    House of Representatives (member offices).........................     6
    House of Representatives (committee office).......................     1
    Senate (not Senator or committee offices)...............................
    Senator...........................................................     4
    Senate (committee offices)..............................................
    Library of Congress...............................................     1
                                                                      ______
          Total...................................................       330

        These 330 requests for counseling alleged violations under the
    following sections of the Congressional Accountability Act: (Please see
    note above regarding aggregate numbers.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section                        Description                        Cases
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil         334
            Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
            Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
            1973, and title I of the Americans with Disabilities
            Act of 1990
        202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical           1
            Leave Act of 1993
        203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards         2
            Act of 1938
        207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal                      18
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Workplace issues raised by employees requesting counseling under
    the CAA fell into the following categories: (Please see note above
    regarding aggregate numbers.)

    Assignments.......................................................     1
    Compensation......................................................    13
    Discipline........................................................    12
    Equal pay.........................................................   287
    Harassment........................................................    11
    Hiring............................................................     2
    Leave.............................................................     1
    Overtime Pay......................................................     2
    Promotion.........................................................     3
    Reasonable accommodations.........................................     3
    Retirement........................................................     1
    Termination.......................................................    24
    Terms and conditions of employment................................     5

                           RESULTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS

    Counseling
        Of the 330 counseling requests received between January 1, 1999 and
    December 31, 1999, and the 2 pending on January 1, 1999:

      --7 cases closed during or after counseling, but before mediation
        --0 settled
        --7 sought no further action;
      --7 cases were pending at the end of 1999;
      --318 requests for mediation were filed.

    Mediation
        318 mediation requests were received between January 1, 1999 and
    December 31, 1999. In addition, on January 1, 1999 there were 13 cases
    pending in mediation, and 10 cases which had completed mediation and
    were in the open period for filing a complaint. Of those 341 cases:

      --41 cases closed during or after mediation
        --16 cases were settled
        --in 20 cases, no further action was taken by the covered employee
                after mediation ended
        --5 civil actions were filed in District Court;
      --9 cases were pending in mediation on December 31, 1999;
      --282 cases had completed mediation and were in the time period when
            a complaint could be filed;
      --9 complaints were filed after mediation ended.

    Complaints
        If the dispute remains unresolved after counseling and mediation,
    an employee may elect to file a civil action in the district courts of
    the United States or to file a complaint with the Office. If a
    complaint is filed with the Office, a Hearing Officer is appointed to
    hear the case and issue a decision.
        Nine complaints were filed with the Office between January 1, 1999
    and December 31, 1999 and five complaints were pending on January 1,
    1999.

                              BASIS OF COMPLAINTS

        The complaints filed during 1999 involved the following issues:
      --alleged termination based on national origin
      --alleged harassment based on gender
      --alleged discrimination in assignments and other terms and
            conditions of employment based on national origin and in
            retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by the CAA
      --alleged termination in retaliation for opposing practices made
            unlawful by the CAA (2 cases)
      --alleged discrimination in terms and conditions of employment based
            on gender and in retaliation for having used family and medical
            leave
      --alleged discriminatory treatment in retaliation for initiating
            proceedings under the CAA
      --alleged termination based on gender and in retaliation for opposing
            practices made unlawful by the CAA
      --alleged suspension and failure to properly pay an employee in
            retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by the CAA.
        In addition, one complaint alleging a breach of the CAA's
    confidentiality requirements was heard and decided by a hearing
    officer. That decision was not appealed.

                           ACTION TAKEN ON COMPLAINTS

        Any party aggrieved by a Hearing Officer's decision may file a
    petition for review of the decision by the Board of Directors of the
    Office.
        During January 1, 1999-December 31, 1999:
        Hearings.--9 hearing officer decisions were issued; 4 cases were
    settled or otherwise resolved before the hearings concluded; and 1
    complaint was pending, awaiting a decision by the Hearing Officer.
        Appeals.--2 petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions were
    filed with the Board; and 7 Hearing Officer decisions were not appealed
    and became the final decisions of the Office.
        Board action.--2 Board decisions were issued in 1999; and no
    petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions were pending on
    December 31, 1999.
        Judicial review.--1 Petition for review was filed; one court
    decision was issued on a petition for review filed in 1998. The U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's decision.

                           LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

        The Office carries out the Board's investigative authorities under
    section 220 of the CAA, involving issues concerning the appropriateness
    of bargaining units for labor organization representation, the duty to
    bargain, and exceptions to arbitrators' awards.
        During January 1, 1999-December 31, 1999:
      --11 representation petitions were filed;
      --4 election agreements were entered into by the parties and approved
            by the Executive Director on behalf of the Board;
      --5 elections were conducted. As a result of the elections, five
            labor organization were certified as bargaining representatives
            of employees;
      --6 petitions were pending on December 31,1999: four representation
            petitions filed by four labor organizations seeking to
            represent four separate units, totaling approximately 90
            employees of an employing office; a representation petition
            filed by a labor organization seeking to represent a unit of
            approximately 16 employees, and a unit clarification petition
            seeking to resolve the unit status of certain employees in a
            bargaining unit certified in 1997.

                       THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

        The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for matters
    arising under three sections of the CAA: section 210--Public Services
    and Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
    section 215--Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and section
    220--unfair labor practices under chapter 71, of title 5, United States
    Code.
        76 requests for Information and Technical Assistance were made from
    January 1999 through December 1999 under the following sections:

    Section 210: Public Services and Accommodations under the
        Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.......................    13
    Section 215: Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970...........    57
    Section 220: Unfair Labor Practices under chapter 71, of title 5,
        United States Code............................................     6

        From January 1999 through December 1999, the following actions
    occurred:

    Section 210:
        Charges filed.................................................     1
        Cases closed..................................................     1
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1999...............................
    Section 215:
        Requests for inspections filed................................    19
        Cases closed..................................................     8
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1999.........................    11
    Section 220:
        Unfair Labor Practice charges filed...........................    12
        Complaints issued.............................................     1
        Cases closed..................................................     6
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1998.........................     6
    Disposition of Complaint(s):
        Hearing Officer issued an opinion granting the General Counsel's
    motion for summary judgment; the opinion was not appealed and became a
    final decision of the Board on December 22, 1999.

                        Safety and the historic Capitol

        Senator Bennett. Thank you. You were present during our
    discussion about the Capitol. And you are charged with the
    other side of it.
        Do you have any comment at all on this controversy of how
    we are going to deal with the Capitol, preserve its historic
    side and, at the same time, deal with the challenges you have
    to deal with?
        Mrs. Silberman. I would like to turn that question to Gary
    Green who is our resident expert in all this, and who actually
    has the authority over that part of the Act.
        Senator Bennett. Okay.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I came in during the course of Mr.
    Hantman's testimony, and do not pretend to understand his
    position fully. But based on what I heard, his view is that
    there are important fire safety objectives which have yet to be
    accomplished, and he is on the road toward it and he is
    committed to it. And that, of course, totally squares with my
    experience as the person who is charged with enforcing those
    laws against him.
        He has been responsive to the citations that we have issued
    in the past. And I take it from his testimony and from the
    behavior of his people in the field, that he will be equally
    responsive in the future.
        There is a lot of catching up that needs to be done.
    Congress has had a long exemption from fire safety laws, and a
    lot of good fortune in avoiding fatalities, injuries and
    damage. And I think there is a growing recognition that this is
    the time to do more.
        We just completed, as you probably know, an extensive
    report on the state of fire safety across the entire Capitol
    Hill complex, and found many violations of existing standards,
    including some violations which are very serious and deserve
    immediate prompt attention. And my office may be obliged to use
    the citation process to prompt more expeditious treatment of
    those risks.
        I was very interested, Senator Bennett, in hearing your
    remarks to Mr. Hantman a few minutes ago about the importance
    of the history lesson that people get when they visit this
    campus, and I could tell that there was some real passion in
    that view, which I would be presumptuous enough to say that I
    share with you.
        And I think a lot of laymen, myself included, come to this
    subject of fire safety with the sense that it is incompatible
    with the historic and architectural integrity that we want to
    preserve. And one of the things that I am beginning to learn as
    I try to manage my job, is that the experts have a lot to teach
    us here. And that it is not incompatible.
        For instance, in the Jefferson Building, which I also
    admire very much, my staff received a tour from one of the
    Architect of the Capitol's employees, who took them and showed
    them a magnificent fresco on the ceiling and asked them to find
    the sprinklers. They could not find them, but they were there.
        We have also visited some of the historic buildings under
    the jurisdiction of the executive branch right here in the city
    to see how the blessings of history have been preserved
    alongside the safety features of the new technology. And there
    are fire doors, for example, in the Hoover Building, of the
    Department of Commerce, in the Ariel Rios Building up on
    Pennsylvania Avenue, which are invisible to people from 5 feet
    away. But when they are needed, they automatically deploy. And
    the price tag is not a deterrent here.
        So, I would say that based on the fire safety report that
    we have issued, and the citations that are likely to follow it,
    we will be giving the Architect a detailed prescription for how
    and when to raise the level of safety to where the employees
    and the visitors and the Congressman themselves will have the
    necessary level of safety without sacrificing those values that
    you and I both care about.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that response and
    the sensitivity that it represents, because this is a ticklish
    problem and it needs that kind of attitude and view.
        I have no further questions, and we appreciate what you do,
    and we will carefully consider your request.
        Mrs. Silberman. Thank you, as always.
        Senator Bennett. I wish every increase was in the $95,000
    area, rather than the millions.
        Mrs. Silberman. That is why we like to talk about it, not
    as a percentage, because our budget is so small to begin with.
        Senator Bennett. That is right.
        Mrs. Silberman. It is only $95,000.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Bennett. Only $95,000. Thank you again.
        Mrs. Silberman. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. With reference to the Office of Compliance's Annual
    Report to Congress, dated January 2000, it is noted on page 4 that 330
    of the covered employees of the Legislative Branch filed formal
    requests for counseling during calendar year 1999. Of the total 330
    requests for counseling, 311 of those requests were from employees of
    the Architect of the Capitol. When compared with other congressional
    offices, Capitol Police, and Library of Congress, this figure simply is
    rather alarming!
        Without disclosing confidential information with regard to specific
    AOC employee grievances, could your office provide the Subcommittee
    with additional information regarding the types of complaints that make
    up the 311 requests for counseling, and whether your office has
    identified any pattern of non-compliance by the AOC in certain areas?
        Answer. Of the 311 requests for counseling from employees of the
    Architect of the Capitol in calendar year 1999, 287 relate to one
    employment issue. These are individual claims arising from the
    application of a single personnel policy that is being disputed by
    employees who are all similarly situated and affected by that policy.

                                                                      Claims

    The remaining cases pertain to claims arising under the section of
      the CAA referenced below \1\:
        Section 201 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Age
          Discrimination in Employment, Rehabilitation Act, Americans
          with Disabilities Act)......................................    25
        Section 202 (Family & Medical Leave Act)......................     1
        Section 203 (Fair Labor Standards Act)........................     1
        Section 207 (Prohibition of Intimidation or Reprisal).........    12
    The bases for the 25 Section 201 claims are as follows \1\:
        Discrimination based on race..................................    14
        Discrimination based on disability............................     3
        Discrimination based on national origin.......................     3
        Discrimination based on gender................................     2
        Discrimination based on color.................................     1
    The issues cited in these remaining cases are as follows \1\:
        Termination...................................................     5
        Discipline....................................................     4
        Overtime pay..................................................     1
        Leave.........................................................     1
        Promotion.....................................................     1
        Assignment....................................................     1
        Terms and conditions..........................................     1
        Compensation..................................................     9
        Hiring........................................................     1
        Reasonable accommodation......................................     3
        Harassment....................................................     3

    \1\ Aggregate numbers may not total as expected as a single case may
    involve more than one section or subsection of the CAA and/or more than
    one issue or alleged violation. Similarly, employees sometimes do not
    state with specificity the basis for a claimed violation.

        Based on a review of the above-mentioned cases, and taking into
    account the fact that the Architect of the Capitol is the largest
    employing office covered by the Congressional Accountability Act, we do
    not discern a pattern of non-compliance with the CAA. Indeed, the AoC
    has been very cooperative with the Office and has worked toward
    resolving employee disputes.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Bennett. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Tuesday, February 29, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Bennett.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                     Office of the Secretary of the Senate

    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            SHARON ZELASKA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
            TIMOTHY S. WINEMAN, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. The hearing will come to order, and this
    is the last hearing on the fiscal 2001 budget request for the
    legislative branch. We appreciate the witnesses that are
    scheduled today.
        Before we go to their testimony, I need to note for the
    record that this is going to be a difficult year for this
    subcommittee. We will have to make our budget recommendations
    in the next few months, and we were such heroes last year
    because we came in with a slight reduction from the year
    before. As we look over the requests, we are not going to be
    able to complete our work this year without disappointing a
    whole lot of people.
        The budget request is 11 percent higher than last year's
    level. Maybe we should have gone to a 5 percent increase last
    year and then a 5 percent increase this year and people would
    not be as upset.
        But we have worked hard to make sure that we did not
    neglect maintenance around the campus here, or delay projects
    that would end up costing taxpayers more money in later years.
    My own business background tells me that one of the most
    foolish things you can do is cut your maintenance budget and
    look good in the short run and then end up with major problems
    in the long run.
        So I am very sympathetic to those that have requests this
    year that look like they would be good investments, but we are
    going to have to make some difficult decisions as we are
    challenged by this.
        Before we proceed, Senator Feinstein could not be here
    today, and she asked that her statement by placed in the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        I join with Chairman Bennett in extending our appreciation
    to both the Secretary of the Senate, Gary Sisco, and the Senate
    Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Jim Ziglar.
        Mr. Sisco and Mr. Ziglar represent two of the most
    important segments of the Senate, and they shoulder tremendous
    responsibilities in their charge to keep things running
    efficiently and effectively. Over the last few years, we in
    government have been challenged to keep pace with the
    technological advances in the private sector. It has taken the
    tremendous courage and forward thinking of individuals, such as
    Gary Sisco and Jim Ziglar, for us in the Legislative Branch to
    envision where we want to be in the next five to ten years, and
    then to set that vision into action as quickly and as
    economically as possible.
        They and their staffs work tirelessly behind the scenes
    every day, and sometimes late into the evenings, to handle a
    myriad of activities that are essential for the successful
    operation of the Senate. Their staffs are very dedicated and
    hard-working, and I wanted to take this opportunity to pass
    along my personal gratitude for all that they do to assist me,
    my staff, and the Senate as an institution.
        I join Chairman Bennett in saying how much we appreciate
    your good work.

        Senator Bennett. So with that somewhat grim opening, we
    welcome our first witness, the Secretary of the Senate, the
    Honorable Gary Sisco, accompanied by Sharon Zelaska, the
    Assistant Secretary of the Senate, and Tim Wineman, the
    Financial Clerk. We note the Secretary's budget request for
    fiscal 2001 is $16,815,000, which is a 7 percent increase over
    last year's level.
        Mr. Sisco, I have to note for the record that this is the
    first time in 4 years that you have requested an increase above
    COLA. So we commend you for your management in the past. I
    guess it was inevitable that sooner or later an increase would
    come along. But we are grateful to you for your frugality and
    look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Now, we have received testimony of Mr. Wineman, the
    Financial Clerk, and it will be added to the record. So Mr.
    Sisco, we are happy to hear from you.

                            STATEMENT OF GARY SISCO

        Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether I
    should go back and revise my budget before I make the
    presentation, after your opening remarks.
        Senator Bennett. Any contributions will be gratefully
    received.
        Mr. Sisco. But I do thank you for your kind remarks and for
    setting the stage for this testimony this year. As you
    mentioned, Sharon Zelaska, the Assistant Secretary of the
    Senate, and Tim Wineman, the Financial Clerk, are both with me.
    They are familiar faces around the Capitol. They represent more
    than 200 capable and dedicated staff with the Office of the
    Secretary.
        Sharon and the legislative staff have been implementing the
    Legislative Information System, or LIS, one of the two major
    technology systems that this committee has mandated and funded
    in the past. Tim and the disbursing office staff are
    implementing the other major system, the Financial Management
    Information System, or FMIS. As you noted, Tim in his capacity
    as Financial Clerk has separately provided the information on
    the budget for the entire Senate.
        So my statement this morning will present the request of
    the Office of the Secretary. I am going to try to reduce a few
    hundred pages of submission down to 8 to 10 minutes if I can,
    and then respond to any questions that you may have.
        Senator Bennett. The entire submission will be included in
    the record.
        Mr. Sisco. Thank you.
        I want to limit my remarks here to three items. First will
    be the formal request for the budget for fiscal year 2001.
    Then, a discussion of the mandated systems--the financial
    system and the legislative system--and go into some detail
    about the request for this increase, which is the first one in
    4 years above COLA's. Then, I want to close with some comments
    on the most recent progress on the Capitol visitor center,
    which this committee and you as a member of the Capitol
    Preservation Commission have a great interest in.
        But before I get into specifics this morning, I want to
    take a minute to thank the members of the committee and the
    committee staff. Also, I saw here earlier the staff of the
    Rules Committee. And in particular I want to thank Jim Ziglar,
    the Sergeant at Arms, and his staff, and all of the people with
    both the committees and the Sergeant at Arms who have done such
    great work with us and cooperated with us on these two systems,
    and also on every item day to day where we try to provide the
    best services possible to the individual Senators, their
    staffs, the committees, and the whole Senate as an institution.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Now to the budget. As I stated and as you mentioned, this
    is the first time since fiscal year 1997 that I have asked for
    additional money in the expense category--in addition to the
    COLA request. So the total budget request is $16,815,000;
    $14,738,000 of that would be for salaries and $2,077,000 of
    that would cover the expenses.
        We have increased our budget request for salaries over last
    year by 3.77 percent, or $536,000. We are not adding or
    requesting any more FTE's. We have been giving merit increases
    over the past 4 years and those have been accommodated within
    this funding request.
        The budget for expenses does include an increase of
    $566,000. That will be for further development of the FMIS,
    which will benefit the Senate, I think, considerably and we
    feel it would be justified. But other than that, all of the
    departments are at level funding.

                    FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

        On FMIS, the work began on that, obviously, prior to my
    arrival, and we had $7 million of no-year money--money that was
    made available through fiscal year 2000--to develop that. But
    we found with the rapid advances in technology that it was very
    difficult to estimate what the cost would be of fully replacing
    the non-Y2K-compliant conglomeration of a dozen or so financial
    systems scattered throughout the Senate. Yet to date we have
    accomplished much working together--all of us that I mentioned
    earlier.
        We now have a commercial off-the-shelf financial management
    system for both the general ledger and for purchasing. That has
    been implemented. Tim and his able staff have converted the
    general ledger from a cash basis accounting to obligation and
    accrual-based accounting. We are now using OMB object
    classification codes for use in expenditures, so that for the
    first time our budget authority and our expenditures can be
    reported on a basis consistent with the rest of the Government.
        We have also developed a web-based front end budgeting and
    accounts payable system for use by the individual Senators,
    their staffs, the committees, and the leadership and support
    offices. This was rolled out in October of last year, 1999. We
    are calling this component of FMIS the Web FMIS, and the
    requested increase is to enhance the capabilities of this front
    end system.
        We want to do that based on feedback that we have received
    from the Member offices and the committee clerks and others who
    are working on the system and helping us design it and improve
    it over time.
        In addition, as you well know from all your great work with
    Y2K, both the FMIS system and the LIS system--and all of our
    systems--are Y2K-compliant, thanks again to the emphasis put on
    that and the work of the Sergeant at Arms staff and the
    cooperative work of all the people who work here in the Senate.
        But we still have some work to do. This includes achieving
    two of our primary goals with FMIS that we have not completed.
    First, we need to advance the Senate into a paperless or a
    reduced paper environment, where the accounting items that we
    deal with from here, and that are generated from the State
    offices throughout the country, all come in, are stored,
    transmitted, retrieved, approved, and of course paid
    electronically as well as reported electronically.
        Second, we need the capacity to produce an annual
    consolidated auditable financial statement for the entire
    Senate, which has not ever been done. So those are the two
    goals--a paperless system or near-paperless system and then to
    produce a consolidated statement for the Senate.
        But working with the Sergeant at Arms and his staff and
    with the disbursing office taking the leadership, we have
    developed a strategic plan--which was issued to this committee
    and to the Rules Committee this past month--with a road map to
    accomplish these goals and to complete these two items of the
    FMIS. It calls for further development, as I mentioned, of the
    Web FMIS, which allows each of the Senate employing offices--
    each of the Senators--to organize their own staffs, here and at
    the State level, in whatever manner they want to do that, and
    to run their offices the way they want to run them, but to use
    their own individual system to research and retrieve their
    office financial information from the system, and to originate
    the financial documents they use on their desktop computers.
        Access is controlled by standard system security measures,
    including individual passwords for the individual employing
    offices. Web FMIS is interfaced with the main systems at the
    disbursing office and this will allow us to provide each office
    individually with expanded and more timely financial
    information day to day or week to week, in addition to the
    monthly financial statements that we already provide those
    offices.
        Further Web FMIS enhancements will permit the Senate
    offices--as really the front end of the system--to input their
    own financial information directly into the disbursing office
    systems, the back end of the system, for processing.
        So we think that using Web FMIS will be a key component of
    achieving our first goal of a paperless or reduced paper
    environment in the Senate.
        With regard to producing the consolidated statements, the
    plan calls for a thorough survey and evaluation and ultimately
    the preparation of an audit program and an audit plan for the
    Senate. This additional $556,000 funding request will, as I
    said, help us achieve these two goals and help complete the
    FMIS project.

                         LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM

        Now to the LIS. The Legislative Information System, or LIS,
    is the other mandated system. It is a means for Senators and
    staff, everyone involved in the process, to get the text of
    Senate or House legislative documents from the desktop
    computers in their offices, in a choice of formats. It provides
    real-time access to the legislative amendments--real-time being
    15 minutes or less from the time they are introduced on the
    floor until they are available at the desktops of people who
    are working in the legislative arena.
        It also provides the current status of new legislation--
    within 24 hours or the next day for bills introduced. No matter
    how much volume of text is contained in a bill, it is available
    the next day on the LIS.
        Since December of last year, all of the legislative
    departments have been using the LIS document management system
    which was installed, taking advantage of the latest technology
    to input all the data for the Members and the staff to retrieve
    it almost simultaneously. Again, this was completed in
    partnership with the Sergeant at Arms and in cooperation also
    in this case with the House of Representatives--who we
    obviously have to coordinate with--the Library of Congress, the
    Government Printing Office, and other offices that have input
    into the system.
        Since the LIS serves the Senate staff at all levels, we
    developed a training program, under the joint training office
    that the Sergeant at Arms and I have set up, for all the staff
    in learning how to use the system that we have been developing.
        For the future, the focus will be on continued
    enhancements. For example, the Senate Recording Studio data
    will be made available within the LIS system at some point.
    This data includes the audio and video feeds from the Senate
    floor and committee activity, as well as the closed captioning
    feeds and transcriptions of those feeds into the recording
    studio. Those will be made available on the LIS.
        In the legislative area, too, with the Clerk of the House
    we are continuing to move forward on developing standard
    generalized markup language, or as it is affectionately known,
    SGML, to create the bills, the amendments, and any other
    legislative documents between the two bodies. SGML uses
    electronic codes to embed content and format information within
    the individual records or text of an electronic document, and
    it is standardized for use on the Senate side and the House
    side so that the same words mean the same things to both as we
    move forward.
        Parts of one document, such as a bill, can be extracted and
    used in another document, like a committee report, for
    consistency, and that can be done without manual reformatting,
    which costs time and also allows for mistakes. It can be
    electronically shipped to GPO ready for printing with
    standardized language and codes. The documents then can be
    exchanged or searched, retrieved, indexed, archived, printed
    and reused in a variety of ways without having to make any
    manual changes. So it saves time and it will improve accuracy.

                             CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Last, the Capitol visitor center. As you know, the 105th
    Congress authorized the visitor center for the first time and
    appropriated $100 million to the Architect of the Capitol to
    plan it, engineer it, design it, and then to construct it. The
    bill at that point provided for that money to be supplemented
    by private fundraising.
        This Congress--the 106th--assigned directive authority to
    the bicameral, bipartisan Capitol Preservation Commission. Nine
    Members of the Senate and nine Members of the House constitute
    the Preservation Commission. That commission has approval for
    project milestones. But, of course, the law also requires for
    this committee and the House Appropriations Committee to take a
    second look at the commission's work and approve the funds for
    the project before they are released.
        We have a design concept approved. This was updated by the
    Architect and approved late last year. We will have the center
    constructed with a target of 2005, with the goal of it being
    constructed and available for the Inauguration in 2005. It will
    be constructed beneath the East Plaza of the Capitol and
    preserve the historic appearance and the landscaping of the
    Capitol.
        It has security features. The Capitol Police Board, the two
    Sergeants at Arms, and the Chief of Police--obviously, we are
    tracking with them and getting all of their input for security
    enhancements. The education component for the visitors coming
    here from around the country will be a great addition to what
    they are able to see in the Capitol now when they come--from
    around the country and around the world.
        As I said, the $100 million appropriation can be
    supplemented by private funds, and recently the commission
    approved the recommendation by myself and the Clerk of the
    House to enter into an agreement with a 501(c)(3)--a
    nonprofit--to be established by the Pew Trusts in Philadelphia
    to raise private funds--fundraising efforts where eventually we
    would end up with an approximate 50-50 public-private
    partnership. That work will be ongoing.
        All the funds raised for the visitor center will be under
    guidelines approved by the commission, and of course the
    commission and the Appropriations Committees will retain
    control over the planning, design, engineering, and
    construction of it and the release of the funds for that.
        It is a project that I was asked to coordinate when I first
    came here. The Secretary has always had a role in that project
    since it was conceived back in the late eighties, and I
    continue to be committed to trying to make it a reality. The
    entire Office of the Secretary, to the extent that we have
    pertinent input, have been involved in that and are supporting
    that effort, as well as all the others.
        In closing, I would say that I focus on the budget request
    and FMIS and LIS and the visitor center as the major projects
    and major milestones. Our major goal continues to be providing
    services every day to the Senators and to the staff and the
    people who work here, to make the service the best possible
    service to the Senate as it works its will.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        So I thank you for your indulgence on the statement and we
    will respond to any questions.
        [The statements follow:]

                        Prepared Statement of Gary Sisco

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your invitation to present testimony in
    support of the budget request of the Office of the Secretary of the
    Senate for fiscal year 2001.
        Detailed information about the work of the 24 departments of the
    Office of the Secretary is provided in the annual reports, which are
    attached. I am pleased to provide this statement to highlight the
    achievements of the Office and to supplement the departmental reports
    in certain areas:
        1. Presenting the fiscal year 2001 Budget Request.
        2. Implementing Mandated Systems: Financial Management Information
    System (FMIS); Legislative Information System (LIS); and Y2K
    Compliance.
        3. Meeting Personnel Challenges for the Future.
        4. Realizing the Vision for the Capitol Visitor Center.
        5. Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative,
    Financial, and Administrative Services: Journal; Parliamentarian;
    Lobbying Disclosure Act; Joint Office of Education and Training;
    Printing and Document Services; Internet and Intranet Services; 106th
    Congress Home Page; Emergency Preparedness; Senate Art; Senate Library;
    and The Impeachment.

                 PRESENTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, the budget of the Office of the Secretary for fiscal
    year 2001 is the fourth budget I have presented during my service as
    Secretary, and the fourth to maintain level funding for salaries aside
    from COLAs. Level budgets have been maintained even though the Office
    has assumed, at the direction of the Senate, responsibilities that
    possibly are greater than at any time in its history. The budget is
    based on a maximum of 252 positions in fiscal year 2001, which is the
    same maximum number of FTEs authorized for fiscal year 2000. The Office
    of the Secretary continues to strive to maintain and improve the day-
    to-day legislative, financial, and administrative services to the
    offices of 100 Senators and to the leadership, committee, and support
    offices without adding new positions, relying instead on focused and
    dedicated management, consolidation of some positions, and much hard
    work on the part of dedicated staff.
        For the first time during my tenure, I am requesting an increase
    for administrative expenses. A non-recurring increase of $566,000 is
    requested to help fund continued development of the Financial
    Management Information System (FMIS) during fiscal year 2001.
        I therefore propose an operational budget for the Office of the
    Secretary for fiscal year 2001 of $16,815,000, consisting of
    $14,738,000 for salaries and $2,077,000 for expenses. The requested
    budget is an increase of $1,102,000, or 7.0 percent, over the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation of $15,713,000.
        The increase to the salaries side of the budget is $536,000 over
    the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $14,202,000, and is accounted for
    entirely by a projected cost of living adjustment (COLA), as follows:
      --$138,000 for the last quarter of calendar year 2000 (the budgeted
            percentage of the calendar year 2000 COLA was 3.9 percent; one-
            quarter of that, or 0.975 percent, applies to October through
            December 2000).
      --$398,000 for the first three quarters of calendar year 2001 (the
            calendar year 2001 COLA estimate is 3.7 percent; three-quarters
            of that, or 2.775 percent, applies to January through September
            2001).
        The increase for expenses, as noted above, is $566,000 over the
    appropriation of $1,511,000 that was maintained for fiscal year 1997,
    1998, 1999, and 2000. The increase is attributable entirely to
    development costs of FMIS. The primary development will be enhancements
    to Web FMIS, the browser-based data entry and reporting system that has
    been deployed in member, committee, leadership and support offices.

                         IMPLEMENTING MANDATED SYSTEMS

    Financial Management Information System (FMIS)

        FMIS, first mandated with the 1995 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act, began with the need to replace and consolidate
    several financial systems within the Senate that were not Y2K
    compliant, that depended heavily on manual data entry, that could not
    account for funds on the obligation- and accrual-basis that is standard
    throughout the federal government and industry, and that had no
    capability to produce an auditable financial condition. Today, the old
    systems have been replaced, and the full system development and
    implementation is continuing ahead of schedule.
        On February 9, 2000, the Office of the Secretary issued its FMIS
    Strategic Plan Update. The purpose of the update is to document the
    initiatives completed so far, and to set the direction for FMIS
    initiatives and enhancements over the remainder of fiscal year 2000 and
    into 2001.
        The Strategic Plan divides the FMIS project into four functional
    phases: (1) Replacement--the replacement of the Senate core financial
    systems with a single, Y2K-compliant commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
    system; (2) Rollout--the distribution, following the initial
    replacement of the core financial systems, of these solutions to
    member, committee, leadership, and support offices; (3) Reporting--the
    use of the new system to compile, develop and distribute financial
    information that was unavailable in the past; and (4) Re-engineering--
    the ongoing and further development of the Senate FMIS technology.
        The Replacement phase is complete. As the Rollout, Reporting, and
    Re-engineering phases are functional, rather than sequential, and key
    elements of all are being implemented concurrently, the Strategic Plan
    also serves to measure the progress of FMIS by dividing the project
    into time phases. Implementation Period I, November 1997-September
    1998, focused on the Replacement phase. Within this time frame, the
    Office of the Secretary installed COTS systems (FAMIS for the general
    ledger and ADPICS for purchasing), implemented the standard general
    ledger used by the federal government, converted from cash-basis to
    obligation- and accrual-based accounting, and adopted the OMB standard
    object classification codes. Implementation Period II, October 1998-
    December 1999, focused on Rollout and Reporting, using FMIS to provide
    Senate offices with a simple method to enter data and to research and
    retrieve their relevant financial information. The Senate elected to
    develop and deploy Web FMIS, which is a browser-based data entry and
    reporting system. Implementation Period III, January 2000-approximately
    October 2000, will continue to emphasize Reporting and Re-engineering
    activities. The Strategic Plan calls for extensive programs of (1)
    operational support, and (2) development initiatives.
        Operational support refers to those tasks required in order to
    sustain FMIS in the Senate. The FMIS performance task force, comprised
    of staff of the Offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms and
    of KPMG Consulting, the outside contractor, tracks performance issues
    and takes corrective action. Operational support will also include the
    transition to the Senate of many tasks that are currently performed by
    the contractor.
        Development initiatives refer to the new and enhanced functional
    capabilities intended for FMIS. Several key initiatives are projected
    by the Strategic Plan. Interfaces will be designed to automate
    processes that now must be done manually. Enhanced financial reports
    will be developed for member, committee, leadership, and support
    offices. One of the initial FMIS objectives was to advance the Senate
    into a paperless or reduced-paper environment, in which accounting
    items and supporting documentation are stored, transmitted, retrieved,
    approved, and paid electronically. The Strategic Plan lays out steps
    toward that goal, while maintaining authentication and security.
    Another of the earliest objectives of FMIS has been to develop the
    capability to produce annual financial statements for Senate offices
    and an auditable financial condition of the Senate. The Strategic Plan
    contains a roadmap toward those goals.
        In sum, the Strategic Plan for FMIS guides Senate financial
    management into the twenty-first century, with the oversight and
    support of this Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration
    and in partnership with the Sergeant at Arms.

    Legislative Information System (LIS)

        LIS, mandated by 2 U.S.C. 123e, is designed to provide a
    comprehensive Senate Legislative Information System to capture, store,
    manage, and distribute Senate documents.
        The Office of the Secretary successfully completed the major
    development and deployment of a Y2K compliant LIS Document Management
    System (LIS/DMS) in December 1999. This milestone was completed in
    partnership with the Sergeant at Arms, and in coordination with the
    Senate Policy Committees, Library of Congress (LOC), Government
    Printing Office (GPO), and the House of Representatives. LIS/DMS is a
    central repository for all Senate legislative information, and allows
    Senators and staff to access the content and status of legislative
    information from their desktop computers in a variety of formats.
        For the remainder of calendar year 2000, the strategic focus of LIS
    development will be on enhancements to the LIS/DMS, initiation of the
    LIS Senate Recording Studio, Transcription, and Closed Captioning
    Project, which will make Senate Recording Studio data available within
    the LIS system, and, most importantly, the completion and
    implementation of the Standard Generalized Markup Language/eXtensible
    Markup Language (SGML/XML) Feasibility Study.
        At the mandate of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and
    the Committee on House Administration, the Secretary and the Clerk are
    developing a standard document/data exchange between the Senate, House
    of Representatives, LOC, and GPO using SGML. SGML is a proven
    technology, first developed in the 1980s and in widespread use in
    government and industry since the early 1990s. By use of a series of
    electronic codes, SGML takes raw text--such as the text of a bill or a
    committee report--and electronically formats that text for further use,
    whether amending, publishing, distributing, or archiving. SGML will
    transmit legislative documents to GPO in an electronic form ready for
    printing, with little need for manual processing. Almost all manual
    functions are eliminated, and by replacing tasks that GPO must now
    perform manually, SGML will produce significant cost savings in
    congressional printing.
        LIS is intended to serve varied groups of users, many with unique
    requirements. LIS training is designed to prepare Senate staff to test,
    use, manage, and maintain the LIS system. With the new release of the
    LIS/DMS, the Office of the Secretary developed customized training for
    user groups with distinct needs, including Senate clerks, system
    administrators, and end users in member and committee offices.

    Y2K Compliance

        Y2K compliance in the Senate was the responsibility of the Sergeant
    at Arms, who was extraordinarily successful in that responsibility. All
    Office of the Secretary staff worked with the Sergeant at Arms in the
    testing, replacement, and certification of our systems. Both FMIS and
    LIS were tested extensively during 1999, and there were no Y2K
    problems.

                  MEETING PERSONNEL CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

        As I have discussed in each report during my service as Secretary,
    there are positions in the Office of the Secretary--particularly but
    not exclusively within the legislative departments--that are essential
    to the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate, and that require
    institutional knowledge and extended on-the-job experience to master.
    These positions, however, often have little comparability to executive
    branch or private sector occupations, and thus the Senate is always
    faced with a major challenge in maintaining sufficient institutional
    knowledge and experience. Within the legislative departments alone, the
    past year saw the death of the Legislative Clerk and the retirements of
    the Journal Clerk, Executive Clerk, Daily Digest Editor, and the Chief
    Reporter of Debates.
        Partly in response, the following legislative departments have been
    reorganized: Legislative Clerk, Journal Clerk, Bill Clerk, Executive
    Clerk, Enrolling Clerk, Daily Digest, Official Reporters of Debates,
    and Captioning Services. Previously, these departments had functioned
    with no common supervisors other than the Secretary and Assistant
    Secretary. With the reorganization, the eight departments, consisting
    of all legislative staff except the Parliamentarian, now report to the
    Legislative Clerk. The duties of the various departments have not
    changed, but the Legislative Clerk provides a single line of
    communication to the Assistant Secretary and Secretary, and is
    responsible for overall coordination, supervision, scheduling, and
    cross-training.
        At present, the Legislative Clerk is in the process of cross-
    training two additional clerks from within the legislative departments
    to perform the floor duties of the Legislative Clerk at the rostrum in
    the Senate Chamber. When that is complete, the Senate will have four
    clerks (the Legislative Clerk, the Assistant Legislative Clerk, and two
    cross-trained from other departments) capable of performing the
    essential responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk on the Senate
    floor.
        All department head positions have been filled with highly capable
    individuals, and there are now no vacancies in any department head
    position nor in any deputy position. This depth is attributable to the
    steps taken over the past years to identify incumbent employees and
    prospective new hires who are highly qualified, appropriately
    experienced, committed to the Senate for the long term, and committed
    to becoming qualified to assume greater responsibilities. In a concrete
    example of how this succession planning has worked, the Keeper of the
    Stationery retired at the end of 1999 and the Assistant was fully
    qualified to move into that position immediately, with no loss of
    service to the Senate.
        With the implementation of FMIS, the organization and staffing of
    the Disbursing Office is undergoing a review by the General Accounting
    Office (GAO). The purpose is to evaluate the resource requirements of
    the Disbursing Office, design an optimum organizational structure, and
    prepare corresponding position descriptions that will enhance
    recruitment, motivation, and retention of highly qualified personnel.
    GAO is reviewing all missions and operations of the Disbursing Office,
    and conducting in-depth interviews with staff to evaluate work flow
    processes and assess ability to meet or to exceed customer
    requirements. Results are anticipated in May 2000.
        The Office of the Secretary is partnering with the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms to implement the newly acquired Lawson Insight
    Software program, which provides better and more accurate information
    for managing personnel resources. Lawson Insight software serves as the
    central repository for essential information on employees within each
    of the two offices. It automates several key functions, saving time,
    effort, and paperwork; and manages a wealth of information, from job
    history, education, and emergency contacts, to transportation subsidy
    participation. Its time accrual feature will handle routine tasks, such
    as tracking sick leave, annual leave, and family and medical leave. Its
    on-line and on-demand capabilities will permit us to proactively manage
    time and attendance and other personnel expenses for our two offices.

              REALIZING THE VISION FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        The 105th Congress authorized the Capitol Visitor Center, an
    essential project to enhance security at the Capitol and the
    educational experience of visitors, and appropriated $100,000,000 to
    the Architect of the Capitol for planning, engineering, design, and
    construction.
        The Capitol Preservation Commission, which is co-chaired by the
    Speaker and President pro tempore and includes the leadership and
    members appointed by the leadership of both houses, approves project
    milestones. As you know, the permanent law governing the Commission
    requires the approval of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
    to expend funds for improvements to the Capitol, and that remains
    unchanged.
        The Commission met in October 1999, and approved the design concept
    for the visitor center, as updated by the Architect. The center is to
    be constructed beneath the East Plaza, preserving the historic
    appearance and landscaping of the Capitol Building. The design provides
    for three levels with approximately 580,000 square feet of finished,
    unfinished (for future needs), and mechanical space. The visitor center
    design includes security features, reception areas, meeting rooms,
    auditoriums, exhibit space, restaurants, and shops.
        The $100,000,000 appropriation for the Capitol Visitor Center is to
    be supplemented by private funds, and the October meeting of the
    Capitol Preservation Commission also directed the Secretary and the
    Clerk to develop a fund-raising plan. The Commission has approved the
    plan of the Secretary and Clerk, dated February 9, 2000, accepting the
    unsolicited offer and agreement of the Pew Charitable Trusts to
    establish a nonprofit 501(c)(3) foundation to solicit and receive
    private funds for the sole purpose of donating such funds for the
    visitor center project. The 501(c)(3) will be an independent,
    nongovernment entity, and a written agreement establishes a clear
    working relationship between the 501(c)(3) entity and the Commission.
    Funds will be raised in accordance with guidelines approved by the
    Commission, and the Commission will retain control over the planning,
    design, engineering, and construction of the Capitol Visitor Center.
        As additional support for the visitor center, Congress last year
    authorized a commemorative coin issue for 2001. The design will be
    emblematic of the first meeting of Congress in the Capitol, and thus
    will commemorate the events of 1800-1801, when the permanent seat of
    government was established here, and the Capitol was the site of the
    first peaceful transition of power from one political party to another
    following a free election. To be issued in gold or platinum, silver,
    and clad versions, the coin can serve as a means for visitors and
    others to make small contributions to the visitor center project while
    taking home a significant commemorative of their Capitol visit.
    Discussions with the Mint on the design and marketing plan have begun.

    MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING CURRENT AND HISTORIC LEGISLATIVE, FINANCIAL,
                          AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

    Journal
        The Constitution requires the Senate to ``keep a Journal of its
    Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same[.]'' Art. I, Sec.
    5, Cl. 3. The Journal is the legal record of the proceedings of the
    Senate, and has been published continuously since the First Session of
    the 1st Congress in 1789. The Legislative Journal for the First Session
    of the 106th Congress is written and in the process of being edited,
    and, beginning with this edition, the Journal will be placed on-line
    and will be accessible electronically.
        For all sessions of the Senate, the Journal Clerk prepares the
    Legislative Journal and the Executive Clerk the Executive Journal. For
    1999, there will also be the Impeachment Journal, for which the Journal
    Clerk is responsible. All three will be printed and made accessible
    electronically during 2000.

    Parliamentarian

        In another example of an application of technology, the
    Parliamentarian is undertaking a project to store the Senate precedents
    electronically. There are, at present, only two copies of the Senate
    precedents as originally prepared by Charles Watkins and his successors
    in the Office of the Parliamentarian. The documents are on either
    legal-sized paper or standard letterhead, and include many excerpts
    from the Congressional Record together with handwritten editorial
    notes.
        The Parliamentarian is now scanning each of these precedents for
    storage on the hard drive of the office computer, and for copying onto
    CD-ROM. A CD-ROM version will be kept in a secure area outside the
    Capitol, protecting access to these precedents in the event the paper
    copies were lost or became unavailable for any reason.

    Lobbying Disclosure Act

        As of September 30, 1999, there were 4,813 lobbying firms and
    organizations registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). These
    registrants represented 13,793 clients, and employed 21,279 lobbyists.
        With the volume of filings steadily increasing, the Office of the
    Secretary has introduced an updated and enhanced web site for lobbying
    information. The site is accessible to the public, and includes the
    statute, forms, instructions, and guidance issued jointly by the
    Secretary and the Clerk of the House. All of these materials may be
    downloaded and printed locally. The site also provides the preliminary
    version of a searchable database. Search capabilities now available
    allow the public to determine the lobbying firms and organizations that
    are registered under the LDA, and the identities of their clients.
        In December 1999, the Senate awarded a contract to develop, test,
    and implement an Internet web-based electronic system for lobbying
    registration and reports. This will provide software for lobbying firms
    and organizations to complete their filings electronically, with
    helpful features such as drop-down screens and pick lists for common
    answers and prompts for incomplete entries. Though it will still be
    necessary for registrants to file hard copies with the Senate Office of
    Public Records and the House Legislative Resource Center, a pilot
    program will also permit filers, at their option, to submit their forms
    to the Senate electronically. The test program will permit the Office
    of Public Records to assess the feasibility of transferring data into
    existing databases without using staff time to key in information
    manually.
        The pilot program has been coordinated with the Clerk of the House,
    and will be reviewed and assessed for possible joint implementation. It
    is intended to carry out the mandate in the LDA to develop electronic
    filing so as to minimize the burden of filing, and, longer-term,
    maximize public access to materials filed under the LDA. It is a major
    step toward fulfilling the long-standing public commitment of the
    Office of the Secretary.

    Joint Office of Education and Training

        The Office of Education and Training, a joint office of the
    Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms, provides employee training and
    development opportunities for all 7,000 Senate staff, both in
    Washington, D.C., and in the states. There are three branches within
    the office. The technical training branch is responsible for providing
    technical training support for approved software packages used in
    either Washington or the state offices. The computer training staff
    provide instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions;
    specialized vendor provided training; computer-based training; and
    informal training and support services. The professional training
    branch provides courses for all Senate staff in areas including:
    management and leadership development, human resource issues and staff
    benefits, legislative and staff information, new staff and intern
    information. Topics include: Managing Change; Ethics; Legalities of
    Casework; Letter and Report Writing; Public Speaking; Motivation;
    Delegation Skills; Stress Management; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator;
    Developing a High Performing Team; Conflict Management and Performance
    Management. The health promotion branch provides seminars, classes and
    screenings on health related and wellness issues.
        The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 417 classes for
    Senate employees in 1999. Total enrollment was 7,012.
        Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
    D.C. based staff, the Office of Education and Training has worked with
    the Office Manager's Council and selected State Directors to develop a
    curriculum for Senate staff from state offices. This training, entitled
    ``State Fair'', is scheduled to begin March 28, 2000. The focus for the
    initial program will be on management and leadership development skills
    for state staff with management responsibility. The courses will be
    conducted over three days with the final day of the program being
    dedicated to computer training.
        The program will be repeated in late June to allow for maximum
    attendance. Next year, the ``State Fair'' curriculum will change and
    the topics will be focused on the learning needs of staff from the
    state offices. The state offices will be responsible for the cost of
    travel, food, and lodging for those attending this program.
    Printing and Document Services
        This department is a demonstration of the advantages of greater use
    of technology. Technology serves the Senate through faster response
    times, reduction in costs, control of waste, and the ability to
    accomplish more with fewer employees.
        To illustrate, because the newly-implemented LIS/DMS system makes
    Senate and House documents available electronically, and the DocuTech
    machine reproduces paper copies locally on demand, the Office of
    Printing and Document Services has significantly reduced the quantities
    of printed documents routinely ordered from GPO. A major cut in
    document printing was instituted last October and another is scheduled
    for this April.
        The office also acquired the new Rotomat carousel filing system as
    part of the larger effort to reduce document waste and the costs of
    storage and inventory control. This new filing system gives the
    department a compact storage system that provides easy retrieval of
    documents (particularly documents from previous Congresses) that can
    then be reproduced by DocuTech in the numbers needed--and only in the
    numbers needed.
        In another illustration of the expanded use of technology, the
    department has posted an electronic form to order documents over the
    Senate Intranet. Members and staff may use the Intranet to order
    documents electronically, 24 hours a day. The printed documents are
    delivered to Senate offices the same day or, in the case of evening
    orders, the next business day. The site became available December 1,
    1999, and its use is increasing rapidly.
        In a step now in planning, the department will use the Intranet to
    post an electronic list of document numbers, showing their arrival from
    GPO and in-stock status. The office is also researching the feasibility
    of an e-mail response to staff indicating that a document has arrived.
    An e-mail response would be especially useful for appropriations bills,
    when Senate staff most need immediate access to the printed copies of
    the legislation. With mass e-mail capability, the office will be able
    to let all members and staff know immediately when a requested document
    has arrived, saving countless phone calls.
        In yet another step, now under study, document numbers on the
    electronic list could be directly linked to the full electronic
    document files on GPO Access. By using the links, members and staff
    could download and print the documents from their desktop computers
    without going to another web site.
    Internet and Intranet Services
        The Office of the Secretary has expanded use of the Intranet to
    bring more information and services to Senate staff. The web page for
    the Document Room was redesigned and, as noted above, an order form was
    posted for on-line requesting of documents. A web page for the
    Disbursing Office was created to make benefit forms and instructions
    available to Senate staff in PDF format for downloading. A web site was
    developed for the Office of Public Records, making the disclosures and
    reports that are required to be completed by Senate staff available for
    downloading in PDF format. The Office of Education and Training added a
    form for on-line enrollment.
        Internet services also saw expansion. The Senate web site was
    redesigned for the 106th Congress, and averaged more than 24,000
    visitors a day in 1999, or nearly 9,000,000 for the year. Among the
    design improvements was the addition of a user-friendly means for
    visitors to find the e-mail addresses of the offices of their Senators.
        The Senate web site was hacked on May 27, 1999, and vandalized
    again on June 11, 1999. The Sergeant at Arms secured the data and
    enhanced security measures, and the Office of the Secretary worked
    closely with the Sergeant at Arms to ensure that the data on the site
    was not compromised.

    106th Congress Home Page
        The 106th Congress Home Page was expanded during 1999 to contain
    the most recent updates to the Biographical Directory of the United
    States Congress: 1774 to Present. Since 1989, when the last revision of
    the print edition appeared, the Senate Historical Office has added
    dozens of new biographical sketches and revised more than half of the
    1,852 Senate entries in the database. A current version is available
    online at http://bioguide.congress.gov. The Historical Office is
    currently preparing to add portraits, photographs, and other
    illustrations of all past and present Senators to the electronic
    database. Work is also continuing on the next print edition, planned
    for publication in 2001.

    Emergency Preparedness

        Emergency preparedness planning is continuing in order to ensure
    that the Senate is able to carry out its constitutional obligations
    under any emergency circumstances. As reported last year, two sets of
    the critical records and resources have been assembled and are now pre-
    positioned in separate, secure locations outside the Capitol Building.
        During the past year, emergency preparedness efforts focused on
    communications issues. The Office of the Secretary worked with the
    Sergeant at Arms to identify and procure an automated communications
    system that will permit the Senate leadership to maintain contact with
    all Senators in the event of emergency. In addition, staff of the
    Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms continued discussions with executive
    branch officials to ensure that the emergency preparedness plans are,
    to the greatest extent practicable, complementary.
        Work continued on the comprehensive disaster preparedness,
    response, and recovery plan for the historic collections of the Senate.
    Staff of Congress, the Library of Congress, and the Supreme Court
    continued discussions of a mutual aid agreement and memorandum of
    understanding.
    Senate Art
        Majority Leader Trent Lott, who chairs the Senate Commission on
    Art, led the Commission in several initiatives during 1999. The Senate
    adopted S. Res. 241, directing the Commission to recommend to the
    Senate two outstanding Senators whose paintings will be placed in two
    of the remaining, unfilled spaces in the Senate Reception Room. The
    resolution provides that the individuals selected by the Commission
    must be deceased, and must not have not served in the Senate within the
    preceding 21 years. Following Senate approval of the two selections,
    the Commission will identify appropriate artists.
        The Commission on Art also approved the commissioning of several
    significant portraits for the Senate Collection. Portraits of Senators
    Margaret Chase Smith (1897-1995) and Blanche Kelso Bruce (1841-1898)
    have been authorized as part of an effort to enhance the collection of
    portraits of women and minorities who served the Senate with
    distinction. Margaret Chase Smith, who served in the House of
    Representatives 1940-49 and the Senate 1949-73, was the first woman to
    win election to both houses of Congress and the first woman elected to
    a leadership post in the Senate. Blanche Kelso Bruce, who served in the
    Senate 1875-81, was the first African-American to serve a full term and
    the first African-American to preside over the Senate, on February 14,
    1879.
        The Senate Leadership Portrait Collection was established to honor
    past leaders of the Senate. Although the Senate has honored the Vice
    Presidents of the United States for their service as President of the
    Senate through the collection of marble busts begun in 1886, it has not
    previously considered a comprehensive art collection of past Presidents
    pro tempore and Majority and Minority Leaders. The first painting to be
    acquired for the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection is that of
    Howard H. Baker, Jr., recommended by Senator Lott. The Commission on
    Art awaits the recommendation of Senator Daschle for another subject
    for this Collection.
        Senator Baker was a member of the Senate 1967-85; he served as
    Majority Leader 1981-85 and Minority Leader 1977-81. The portrait, by
    artist Herbert Abrams, currently hangs in the Capitol on loan from the
    Dirksen Congressional Center in Pekin, Illinois. The Dirksen Center has
    advised that it will be honored to present the painting as a gift to
    the Senate, and the Commission has approved acceptance of this
    donation.
        A painting of Senator James Eastland (1904-1986) is also planned as
    part of the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection. James Eastland, who
    served in the Senate 1943-78, was President pro tempore 1972-78. He was
    chairman of the Judiciary Committee for over 22 years, the longest
    continuous service of any Senate committee chair.
        For all portraits to be commissioned, the Office of Senate Curator
    has developed a list of prospective artists, and an advisory panel of
    professionals in the field is scheduled to review the candidates and
    provide recommendations. The Commission on Art will then select the
    final artists to execute the portraits.
        The Office of Senate Curator continued with the Senate Chamber desk
    restoration program, begun in 1997, and 10 additional desks received
    conservation treatment. To date, 20 desks have been professionally
    restored. These include the Jefferson Davis and Daniel Webster desks,
    and final reports detailing treatment were submitted to Senators Thad
    Cochran and Bob Smith, who currently use these designated desks.
        Following an extensive furniture survey conducted in 1997, a
    comprehensive restoration program continues for the historic
    furnishings in the Old Supreme Court Chamber. Among the items restored
    were 10 desks used by Supreme Court Justices. The historic Willard
    Clock was also restored. Further research is being conducted on the
    various historic furnishings in the room to ensure a more accurate and
    authentic recreation of the Chamber.
        Conservation concerns continue to be a high priority. Restoration
    projects in 2000 will include the Senate Chamber desks (with an
    additional 15 desks to be restored), various original lawyers' tables
    and roll top desks from the Old Supreme Court Chamber, the plaster
    sculpture of Justice, several historic mirrors, two paintings with
    frames, the three Lee Lawrie plaster reliefs, and the Senate snuff
    boxes. Paint analysis of various locations in the Capitol will also
    begin in an effort to more accurately represent the original historic
    colors of the building. A new exhibition highlighting 200 years of
    presidential inaugurations at the Capitol will be installed in the
    first floor connecting corridor of the Senate wing in November.
    Additionally, the new display area in the vacant stairwells of the
    Brumidi Corridors will be completed.
        Also, additional signage will be developed for various locations in
    the Senate. These signs utilize the design elements of the Secretary's
    educational publications and provide visitors with a brief history of
    various rooms and works of art.
        The long-awaited publication, United States Senate Fine Art
    Collection, has progressed considerably and is in its final stages. It
    is anticipated that the volume will be available in the fall of 2000.
    Along with the writing and editing of this catalogue, the Curator
    completed related projects including professional photographs of the
    Collection and a number of room views, and development of a
    comprehensive bibliography.
        The ``Senate Art'' link on the Senate web site is slated for
    several major improvements in 2000. New exhibits highlighting various
    conservation programs, specifically the Senate Chamber desks and
    Brumidi Corridors. Visitors will learn the history of these historic
    desks and corridors, the proposed conservation treatment, and the
    science of conservation in general, and will be updated on the progress
    of current efforts.
        Two final notes are of special importance. The Curator will assist
    the Commission on Art in developing a comprehensive Preservation Policy
    for the Senate. Although the historic art and architecture of the
    Senate is universally recognized as uniquely significant, no
    preservation plan has ever been designed to protect its integrity or to
    prevent its gradual or inadvertent degradation. Increasingly, the heavy
    use of the Senate Wing of the Capitol presents special challenges in
    adapting the aged building to new needs and in restoring and retaining
    its historic character and authenticity. The principles defined in the
    Preservation Policy will serve as a general guide for the restoration
    and preservation of the Senate wing, and promote preservation-sensitive
    planning.
        Further, this year marks the 200th anniversary of the first meeting
    of Congress in the Capitol. To celebrate this significant occasion,
    efforts have begun to restore the historic Senate Vestibule to its
    original nineteenth-century appearance. In 1800, only a part of north
    (or Senate) wing had been completed, and the east door served as the
    principal entrance to the Capitol, leading to what has come to be
    called the Senate Vestibule. While modifications were made to this
    space over the years, and the addition of the east front of the Capitol
    in 1962 turned the Senate Vestibule into an internal doorway, many of
    the features of the original vestibule remain visible today. Visitors
    pass through the Senate Vestibule just as members of Congress crossed
    its threshold two centuries ago. This historic space remains a
    dignified entrance to the oldest portion of the Capitol.
        The Senate Vestibule Restoration Project will include paint
    analysis of the walls and ceiling to determine original colors,
    research on period lighting, a review of the flooring that once
    existed, and the publication of a brochure highlighting this historic
    space. The restoration will be completed this fall.

    Senate Library

        The Senate Library opened its new Russell Building facility on
    February 22, 1999. The new location offers Senate staff access to an
    excellent collection of materials and services: congressional materials
    dating to the Continental Congress; a wide-array of news and legal
    online systems; over 140 periodicals and newspapers; 24,000 books on
    the Senate, American history, and political biography; a Micrographics
    Center with over 1,000,000 microforms; patron access terminals; and a
    reading room with study carrel, and the Library staff whose experience
    and expertise has served and will continue to serve Senate information
    needs.
        The relocation of the Library to the Russell Building offered the
    opportunity to incorporate new design elements in the basement
    corridor, which is a major thoroughfare for Senators, staff, and
    visitors. The most noticeable change was the removal of the lead-based
    paint from the corridor walls, which exposed the stunning circa 1905
    brick work. The corridor is further complimented by eight exhibit cases
    designed by Library staff with the assistance of the Office of
    Conservation and Preservation. The cases display important portions of
    the Library collection, photographs from the Senate Historical office,
    and historical objects maintained by the Curator. The exhibit topics
    have included the great triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun; the
    history of the Minton tiles, along with rare 1850s tiles; the American
    Guide Series, which are renowned state histories produced during the
    Depression; the Senate Page program; the early history of the Press
    Gallery; and a look at Capitol Hill in the American Novel. A new
    display will be presented every three months that will provide an
    educational snapshot of Senate history.
        As a tribute to the rich history of the Senate and the Capitol, the
    Library has identified and acquired 70 rare books from antiquarian book
    dealers, duplicating volumes that were contained in the original
    collection of the Library of Congress, prior to the fire of 1814.

    The Impeachment

        The Senate Historical Office, as part of its Oral History Program,
    has over the past year conducted interviews with about 20 key
    individuals who were involved in the planning and management of the
    impeachment trial. As is the case with all oral history programs, these
    interviews are conducted for their permanent historical value and, for
    that reason, the transcripts and materials are opened to researchers
    and the public only after an appropriate interval has passed (they are
    not opened during the lifetime of an interviewee unless that individual
    so agrees).
        The Historical Office is also continuing its preparation of the
    publication Documentary History of Senate Impeachment Trials. This
    publication will present a documentary case-study look at each of the
    seventeen impeachment trials conducted by the Senate, focusing on the
    development of impeachment procedures. Working drafts have been
    prepared for each case, with selection of key documents still to be
    done. Completion is expected in 2001.
        By a unanimous-consent agreement of February 12, 1999, the final
    day of the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton,
    the Senate directed the Secretary to assemble the complete record of
    the Senate proceedings in the impeachment and publish the record as a
    Senate document. That record, designated as Senate Document 106-4, is
    nearing publication. The publication collects the historical record in
    a single document, including the Senate floor proceedings, the filings
    by the parties, the supplemental materials that the Senate received
    into evidence, the statements of Senators explaining their votes on the
    two articles of impeachment, and other materials of historic interest.
    This document will preserve the formal record of the only presidential
    impeachment trial of the twentieth century for the future use of the
    Senate, historians, and the public.
                                     ______

    Office of the Secretary of the Senate Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary,
            Apportionment Schedule, and Departmental Annual Reports

                                 BUDGET SUMMARY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Amount       Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget:
        Payroll Budget............................     $14,202,000      90.4
        Operating Expense Budget..................       1,511,000       9.6
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................      15,713,000     100.0
                                                   =========================
    Suggested Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request:
        Payroll Budget............................      14,738,000      87.6
        Operating Expense Budget..................       2,077,000      12.4
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................      16,815,000     100.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Amount
                                       available      Budget
                                      fiscal year    estimate
                  Item                    2000     fiscal year   Difference
                                      (Public Law      2001
                                        106-57)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Executive Office................     $718,100     $397,800    ($320,300)
    Administrative Services.........      463,800    1,422,900      959,100
    Legislative and Legal Services..      329,100      256,300      (72,800)
                                     ---------------------------------------
          Total.....................    1,511,000    2,077,000      566,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENTS
                                   BILL CLERK

        The Bill Clerk collects and records data on the legislative
    activity of the Senate, which becomes the historical record of official
    Senate business. The Bill Clerk keeps this information in handwritten
    files and ledgers and enters it so that it is available to all House
    and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System (LIS). The
    Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to bills, reports,
    amendments, cosponsors, public law numbers, and recorded votes. The
    Bill Clerk is responsible for preparing for print all measures
    introduced, received, submitted, and reported in the Senate. The Bill
    Clerk also assigns numbers to all Senate bills and resolutions. All the
    information received in this office comes directly from the Senate
    floor in written form within moments of the action involved.

    Legislative Activity

        The legislative materials processed by the Bill Clerk during the
    first session of the 106th Congress, increased since the close of the
    first session of the 105th Congress. Below is a comparative summary of
    the first sessions of the two Congresses:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              106th Congress  105th Congress
                                                1st Session     1st Session
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills............................           1,997           1,568
    Senate Joint Resolutions................              37              39
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions...........              77              70
    Senate Resolutions......................             241             163
    Amendments Submitted....................           2,806           1,639
    House Bills.............................             285             224
    House Joint Resolutions.................              20              19
    House Concurrent Resolutions............              77              44
    Measures Reported.......................             347             248
    Roll Call Votes.........................             374             298
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relations with GPO

        The Government Printing Office has responded in a timely manner to
    the request of the Bill Clerk for the printing of bills and reports,
    including the printing of priority matters for the Senate chamber. The
    record on specific GPO printings for the first session is summarized
    below:

      --Star Prints: 20 pieces of legislation
      --``Bates List'': 20 pieces of legislation
      --Star Prints (legislation re-prints) were high for two reasons:
            First, more Star Prints were ordered on the Senate floor,
            reflecting an increase in committee-initiated reprints.
            Secondly, the Bill Clerk authorized more reprints due to an
            increase in clerical (GPO and Bill Clerk) errors. The number of
            Star Prints due to clerical error is expected to decrease in
            the second session of this Congress.

        The number of measures placed on the ``Bates List'' (a request
    sheet for priority printing) was high due increased requests from floor
    staff to have legislation available for possible activity by the
    Majority Leader. Most appropriations bills were placed on this list.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        The Bill Clerk worked with the KPMG, the Senate Computer Center,
    and the office of the LIS Special Assistant to facilitate the LEGIS
    phase-out and the December 1999 conversion to the LIS system. The Bill
    Clerk initiated corrections and change requests to the system while
    reviewing the LIS system performance and functionality with respect to
    data entry as well as report retrieval and printing.
    Personnel and Office Procedures
        In April 1999, the Bill Clerk and an Assistant Bill Clerk assumed
    different positions on the legislative staff, and a new Bill Clerk was
    named. In addition, two new employees were promoted, one from the
    Executive Clerks and one from Morning Business, to become Assistant
    Bill Clerks. In addition to the staff changes, the Bill Clerk absorbed
    many of the daily functions of the Morning Business Office in an effort
    to streamline work functions and to minimize duplicate data entry by
    multiple offices. The extra workload initially demanded more fastidious
    attention; however, the Bill Clerks minimized any negative impact on
    performance and functionality during the infancy of the merger of the
    two offices. The Bill Clerk expects to streamline workflow and
    integrate procedures due to the merger successfully by the close of
    this Congress.

                                  DAILY DIGEST

        The Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record provides a
    concise accounting of all official actions taken by the Senate on a
    particular day. All Senate hearings and business meetings (including
    joint meetings and conferences) are scheduled through the Daily Digest,
    reported on daily, and are published in the Congressional Record.

    Chamber Activity

        The Senate was in session a total of 162 days, for a total of 1,183
    hours and 57 minutes. There were 7 quorum calls and 374 record votes.

    Committee Activity

        Senate committees held 844 hearings and 180 business meetings
    (total 1,024), contrasted with 824 hearings and 247 business meetings
    (total 1,071) during the First Session of the 105th Congress.
        All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
    conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
    Digest and are published in the Congressional Record and are now
    entered in the new Senate Committee Scheduling web-based applications
    system (effective January 1, 1999). Meeting outcomes are also published
    by the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.

    Government Printing Office

        The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the
    end of each day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The
    Digest also continues the practice of sending a disk along with a
    duplicate hard copy to GPO, even though GPO receives the Digest copy by
    electronic transfer long before hand delivery is completed adding to
    the timeliness of publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest
    continues to discuss with GPO problems encountered with the printing of
    the Daily Digest section. Corrections or transcript errors have become
    very infrequent due to the ability of electronic transfer.

                                ENROLLING CLERK

        The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
    Senate passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of
    Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the
    United States Claims Court, and the White House.
        During 1999, 50 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and 6
    concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
    printed, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment.
        A total of 563 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
    another, was passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing
    from this office.
        The House and the Senate in conjunction with the Library of
    Congress and the Government Printing Office are in the process of
    changing how the data for bill text is produced. Currently the Senate
    Enrolling Clerk, the House Enrolling Clerk, the Senate Legislative
    Counsel, the House Legislative Counsel, and the Government Printing
    Office produce the bill text with a software editor called Xywrite.
    This is not compatible with other software editors which makes it
    difficult to share data. Meetings and workshops have been held
    throughout the year concerning the conversion to another editor using
    Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) which can be used with many
    different editors. The testing of editors is ongoing.

                                EXECUTIVE CLERK

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

    Nominations

        During the first session of the 106th Congress, there were 746
    nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
    23,640 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 12
    messages withdrawing nominations previously sent to the Senate during
    the session. Of the total nominations transmitted, 437 were for
    civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard
    and Public Health Service. In addition, there were 2,822 nominees in
    the ``civilian list'' categories named above. Military nominations
    received this session totaled 20,381 (6,234 in the Air Force, 5,429 in
    the Army, 6,590 in the Navy and 2,128 in the Marine Corps). The Senate
    confirmed 22,468 nominations this session. Pursuant to a unanimous
    consent agreement at the sine die adjournment of the first session of
    the 106th Congress, all pending nominations were ordered carried over
    to the second session of the 106th Congress.

    Treaties

        There were 16 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
    during the first session of the 106th Congress for its advice and
    consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
    for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 106-1 through 106-16).
        The Senate gave its advice and consent to 11 treaties with various
    conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the
    resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.

    Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes

        There were 13 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
    printed for the use of the Senate during the first session of the 106th
    Congress (Executive Report 106-1 through 106-13). The Senate conducted
    fifteen roll call votes in an executive session, 13 on or in relation
    to nominations and 2 on ratification of the resolution to the
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

    Executive Communications

        The growth in the number of the executive communications has
    continued to increased exponentially. Due to the requirement of Public
    Law 105-77 to report vacancies, the number of communications for the
    106th and future Congresses will continue to increase dramatically.
    Through the end of the first session, 6,297 executive communications
    were received during the 106th Congress, and 372 petitions and
    memorials were processed.

    Development of the new LIS

        Staff consulted regularly with KPMG and the Senate Computer Center
    during the year concerning the development of the portion of the new
    LIS pertaining to the processing of nominations, treaties, executive
    communications, presidential messages, and petitions and memorial, and
    met regularly with the CRS staff at the Library of Congress charged
    with developing the retrieval system for the new LIS database. Staff
    explained the processing procedures of the nominations, treaties and
    communications in the Senate to assist in the development of the best
    possible systems for data entry, retrieval, and tracking.

                                 JOURNAL CLERK

        The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings
    of the Senate in the ``Minute Book'' and prepares a history of bills
    and resolutions for the printed Senate Journal that is the legal record
    of Senate actions and in effect the index of legislative action. The
    Senate Journal is published each calendar year.
        The office is responsible, pursuant to its constitutional duties
    and under the provisions of the Senate rules, to produce a journal of
    the legislative, impeachment, and secret proceedings of the Senate.
        The 1998 Legislative Journal is completed, and is at the Government
    Printing Office for printing and distribution.
        The Impeachment Journal for 1999 is written, edited, and prepared
    for publication.
        The Legislative Journal for 1999 is written and in the process of
    being edited.
        The Impeachment and 1999 Legislative Journal will go the Government
    Printing Office for printing and distribution in the spring of 2000.

                               LEGISLATIVE CLERK

        The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate
    Chamber and reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal,
    Presidential messages, and other such materials when so directed by the
    Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls the roll
    of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record and
    tally all yea and nay votes. This office prepares the Senate Calendar
    of Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and
    prepares additional publications relating to Senate class membership
    and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative Clerk
    maintains the official copy of all measures pending before the Senate
    and must incorporate into those measures any amendments that are agreed
    to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the
    House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by the
    Senate. This office is also responsible for verifying the accuracy of
    that information entered into the LEGIS system by the various offices
    of the Secretary. In addition, this office is very involved in the
    Secretary's multi-year, comprehensive program (LIS) to redesign and
    rebuild the Senate's system for the collection and management of its
    legislative information.

    Summary of Activity

        The first session of the 106th Congress completed its legislative
    business and adjourned on November 19, 1999. During 1999, the Senate
    was in session 162 days, over 1,183 hours and conducted 374 roll call
    votes. There were 345 measures reported from committees, 549 total
    measures passed, and there were 142 items remaining on the Calendar at
    the time of adjournment. In addition, there were 2,806 amendments
    submitted.

    Impeachment Trial of the President of the United States

        The office of the Legislative Clerk felt a significant impact as a
    result of the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Prior to the
    start of the trial, there were many hours spent becoming familiar with
    the procedures for impeachment trials in the Senate and other related
    issues. The Legislative Clerk attended preliminary planning meetings
    with the staffs of the Senate Leadership, the Chief Justice, and Senate
    Legal Counsel. A great deal of time was spent coordinating with the
    staff of the House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary relative
    to the time sensitive delivery of documents from the House Managers to
    the Secretary of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk oversaw the printing
    of the official documents and disbursement thereof to the leadership of
    the Senate as well as to all Senators. During the trial, in addition to
    the core responsibilities at the rostrum, such as reading aloud
    materials for the Senate, handling of motions, and the taking of votes,
    the Legislative Clerk advised the Secretary concerning the printing of
    trial material for the Congressional Record. Also, the Legislative
    Clerk performed certain additional duties unique to trials; for
    example, the logging and storage of evidence. While the impeachment
    trial was a learning experience as well as interesting from a
    historical perspective, staff labored under a heightened sense of
    tension during the proceedings.

    Legislative Information System (LIS)

        In December of 1999 the Senate replaced the LEGIS information
    system with the newly designed and created Legislative Information
    System (LIS). The conversion to a new Document Management System (DMS)
    was the culmination of many hours of meetings, examining of reports,
    evaluating data input screens, and then providing feedback to
    consultants and the staff of the Senate Computer Center. The
    Legislative Clerk continues to serve as liaison between the Senate
    clerks and the Senate Project Manager. The transition to the new
    document management system will not be easy and will require continued
    extensive review and retraining as the clerks work to become more
    familiar with and improve the system. However, as the clerks become
    more comfortable with and fine tune the new system, the capabilities
    and benefits of LIS will prove to be enormous to Senators and all
    Senate staff.

    Cross-Training

        With an eye on succession and continuity of Senate business, the
    Legislative Clerk is in the process of cross-training two additional
    clerks, from within the legislative staff, to perform Legislative Clerk
    duties on the Senate floor. Currently, the Legislative Clerk and
    Assistant Legislative Clerk can perform the floor duties of the
    Legislative Clerk at the rostrum in the Senate Chamber. It is in the
    best interest of the Senate to have four clerks capable of performing,
    at a minimum, the basic responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk on
    the Senate floor.

                         OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

        The Office of the Official Reporters of Debates is responsible for
    the stenographic reporting, transcribing, and editing of the Senate
    floor proceedings for publication in the Congressional Record. The
    Chief Reporter acts as the editor-in-chief and the Coordinator
    functions as the technical production manager of the Senate portion of
    the Record. The office interacts with Senate personnel on additional
    materials to be included in the Record. On a continuing basis, all
    materials to be printed in the next day's edition of the Record are
    transmitted electronically and on paper to the Government Printing
    Office.

    Accomplishments

        The Official Reporters began the first session of the 106th
    Congress reporting the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson
    Clinton. This presented a unique challenge to the individual reporters
    in the Chamber.
        After producing an open proceedings record, it was necessary to
    produce a transcript of the closed-door sessions; this record was then
    treated separately and not available to the public.
        Subsequent to the sine die adjournment of the 106th Congress, the
    Office of the Official Reporters of Debates proofread and edited the
    transcript of the open impeachment proceedings and then reproofread the
    transcript before its final printing by the Government Printing Office.
        During and after the impeachment proceedings, this office
    electronically submitted approximately 80-85 percent of the floor
    debate transcript to GPO.

    Morning Business

        This segment of the Congressional Record was split between the
    Office of the Official Reporters of Debates and the Bill Clerk, with
    the bulk of the tasks being performed by the Bill Clerk.

    Goals

        As always, a major priority is to provide transcripts of floor
    statements of Senators within an hour and a half.
        Another goal is to increase the percentage of electronically
    submitted material to the GPO.
        Greater use and knowledge of the new LIS system will be stressed.
    Also, computer educational opportunities will be made available to all
    staff of this office.

    Cost Savings

        Achievement of savings was assured by strict adherence to the 2-
    page rule and the printing of amendments of 10 pages or fewer when
    offered by a Senator during floor debate. It is estimated that well
    over $100,000 in savings was achieved last year. Cost savings were
    accomplished by requiring Senate staff to e-mail statements
    electronically, thereby saving publishing costs at GPO.
    Personnel
        The Office of Official Reporters of Debate announces the retirement
    of Ron Kavulik as Chief Reporter, effective April 1, 1999, and the
    appointment of Jerald Linnell to that position.

                                PARLIAMENTARIAN

        The Office of the Parliamentarian advises the Chair, Senators and
    their staff as well as committee staff, House members and their staffs,
    administration officials, the media and members of the general public
    on all matters requiring an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the
    Senate, the precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, as
    well as provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the
    Senate. The Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral of all
    legislation introduced in the Senate, all legislation received from the
    House, as well as all communications received from the executive
    branch. The office works with Senators and their staffs to advise them
    of the jurisdictional consequences of particular drafts of legislation,
    and evaluates the jurisdictional effect of proposed modifications in
    drafting.
        The office continues to analyze and advise Senators on a great
    number of issues arising under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    The Byrd Rule against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills can
    cause a great deal of parliamentary maneuvering.
        The atmosphere that surrounded the parliamentary process in 1999
    resulted in an unprecedented number of questions that this office was
    asked to resolve, including many involving the impeachment trial of the
    President of the United States. These questions often required hours of
    very difficult and contentious meetings with competing groups of staff.
    At every stage of the budget cycle, this office was called upon to
    arbitrate large numbers of budget and appropriation related questions.
    The Parliamentarian was constantly asked to answer questions during
    consideration on the Senate floor, of the budget resolution and the
    appropriations bill that followed.
        Concerns about the use of the budget surplus promise to keep the
    congressional budget process (with all of its parliamentary complexity)
    in the forefront of the legislative agenda.

                    OFFICE OF PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICES

        The Office of Printing and Document Services is responsible for
    managing Senate printing expenses, and functions as the Government
    Printing Office (GPO) liaison to schedule and/or distribute Senate
    bills and reports to the Senate Chamber, staff, and the public. The
    department provides page counts of Senate hearings to commercial
    reporting companies; orders and tracks all paper and envelopes provided
    to the Senate; provides general printing services for Senate offices;
    and assures that all Senate printing is in compliance with Title 44,
    U.S. Code as it relates to Senate documents, hearings, committee
    prints, and other official publications.
    Background
        The Office of Printing and Document Services is responsible for
    managing the printing and/or distribution of the official Title 44
    U.S.C. printing requirements of the Senate. The coordination of all
    Senate documents, hearings, committee prints, and miscellaneous
    publications between the Senate and GPO is the responsibility of the
    office, as is the distribution of Senate and House legislation.
    Virtually all blank paper, letterheads, and printed envelopes
    throughout the Senate are ordered through the Office of Printing and
    Document Services. Additionally, commercial reporting companies are
    remunerated for transcribing all Senate hearings through the billing
    verification service.
        Efforts to consolidate, restructure, and cross-train personnel in
    other positions within the office continues. The department has been
    able to downsize by two positions since March 1999 and still maintain
    all current services. Although cross-training continues, a new concept
    of ``cross-working'' has been implemented. Under this new ``cross-
    working'' program, newly learned skills will be continually honed. In
    this scenario, the workers will have built into their performance
    criteria specific weekly work requirements in their cross training
    position. For example, a printing specialist might have to spend at
    least three hours a week answering legislative questions on the phones.
    A document specialist would need to produce five printing requisitions
    per week in order to fulfill minimum ``cross-working'' position
    requirements. The advantages to having this multi-trained staff are
    quick response to department changes and the flexibility to reduce
    overall staffing requirements in the future.
    Total Publications
        During the first session of the 106th Congress, 347 publications
    (hearings, committee prints, Senate documents, Senate publications)
    were printed. This compares with 369 publications printed during the
    first session of the 105th Congress, or a decrease of about 6 percent.
    Hearing Transcript and Billing Verifications
        Billing verifications are the mechanism for commercial reporting
    companies to request payment from a committee for transcription
    services. During 1999, the Office of Printing and Document Services
    provided commercial reporting companies and corresponding Senate
    committees a total of 1,214 billing verifications of Senate hearings
    and business meetings (including hearings which were canceled or
    postponed, but still required payment to the reporting company). This
    is a average of 58 hearings/meetings per committee. Compared with 919
    billing verifications in 1998, this was an increase of about 32 percent
    in the number of hearings processed.
        Commercial reporting companies charged the Senate approximately
    $508,815 to prepare 80,228 transcript pages of the spoken portions of
    Senate hearings. This compared to 1998 figures of $447,268 to prepare
    69,855 transcribed pages. The average annual cost per committee during
    1999 was about $24,229, with each committee producing an average of
    3,820 spoken transcript pages. This compares to 1998 where the average
    annual cost per committee was $18,636, with each committee producing an
    average of 2,910 spoken transcript pages.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Percent
                                           1998         1999      Increase/
                                                                   Decrease
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Billing Verifications............          919        1,214          +32
    Transcribed Pages................       69,855       80,228          +15
    Average Pages/Committee..........        2,910        3,820          +31
    Transcribed Pages Cost...........     $447,268     $508,815          +14
    Average Cost/Committee...........      $18,636      $24,229         +$30
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requisitions

        The Office of Printing and Document Services prepared 6,024
    printing requisitions during fiscal year 1999, authorizing GPO to print
    the Senate's work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional
    Record. This is an increase of about 8 percent over fiscal year 1998.

    Paper, Letterheads, and Envelopes

        The Office of Printing and Document Services provides and maintains
    an accounting of blank paper, letterheads, and envelopes for all Senate
    offices. The total blank sheets and letterheads ordered in 1999 was
    approximately 143.8 million sheets, an increase of 44.6 million sheets
    compared to 1998. The large increase in paper usage could in part be
    attributed to the additional Senate requirements during the impeachment
    trial of President Clinton. In 1999, envelope use in the Senate grew at
    a normal rate. The Senate used about 11.4 million envelopes, compared
    to 8.4 million in 1998.

    Cost Accounting Projects and Duties

        Because the requisitioning done by the Office of Printing and
    Document Services is central to the Senate's printing, the office is
    uniquely suited to perform accounting responsibilities for Senate
    printing. Therefore, in addition to the ability to advise Senate
    offices about turnaround and the method of reproduction and to assure
    compliance with Title 44, U.S.C., the Office of Printing and Document
    Services also provides accounting information needed by Senate offices.
    The House, Senate, and GPO are independent of one another, and sound
    accounting principles dictate that their respective auditing procedures
    should be independent as well. Ultimately, this data enables the
    Secretary of the Senate to provide oversight information to the Senate
    Rules Committee and the Joint Committee on Printing.

    The Service Center

        The Service Center (located in SH-B-07) is staffed by experienced
    GPO details who provide Senate committees and the Secretary of the
    Senate's Office with complete publishing services for hearings,
    committee prints, and preparation of the Congressional Record. Services
    include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and composition.
        As a result of these services, committees have been able to
    decrease and/or eliminate overtime costs associated with the
    preparation of hearings, and can now publish in a more timely manner.
    Committees may also realize additional savings because the work done in
    the Service Center is chargeable to the committee as performed as
    opposed to having a full-time staff member or detail assigned to
    printing functions. Finally, by providing the ability to process what
    would otherwise be backlogged work, utilization of the Service Center
    may preclude the need to assign additional staff or GPO details to
    publishing duties.
        During 1999, the Service Center assisted 6 committees with the
    preparation of 96 hearings, committee prints, and Senate documents. The
    Service Center has assisted with about 28 percent of the total
    publications printed in 1999 as compared to 21 percent in 1998.

    Congressional Record

        In 1999, 15,867 pages were printed for the Senate, and 16,317 pages
    were printed for the House of Representatives, for a total of 32,184
    pages. These page counts are comprised of the Proceedings of the Senate
    and the House of Representatives, Extension of Remarks, Digest, and
    miscellaneous pages. This is 4,209 more pages than were produced in
    1998.
        A total of 1.5 million copies of the Congressional Record were
    printed and distributed in 1999. That includes 340,709 to the Senate,
    483,034 to the House, and 629,787 to Executive Branch agencies and the
    public at large.
        The total approximate cost to produce the Congressional Record was
    $17.4 million. Based upon the percentage of content and distribution
    quantities, the proportional Senate cost was $8.1 million, the House
    was $8.3 million, and all other recipients $1 million. The per copy
    cost was about $11.63 (Record costs are based upon GPO estimated
    appropriation costs, not including costs to produce the Record Index or
    microfiche copies).

    Legislation

        The Office of Printing and Document Services maintains records
    regarding all printed versions of legislation considered in the Senate.
    The information is presented by category of legislation, such as Senate
    bills. Each category includes the successive versions in which all
    measures were printed during the legislative cycle (such as a Senate
    bill which is introduced, reported, and printed as passed), including
    star prints.
        The following table is for the first session of the 106th Congress.
    The Number of Pages column refers to the number of original pages,
    including blanks, within the categories listed. The total number of
    printed pages is not shown, but is available. Costs are rounded to the
    nearest hundred, and are based upon estimated GPO appropriation rates.
    Additional reprint copies ordered by the Senate Document Room or
    committees is available. See DocuTech Project).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number
                               Measure                              Count   of Pages    Senate Cost     Total Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills................................................     1,997    43,400       2,700,000       4,000,000
    Senate Reports..............................................       223     7,718         528,400         669,800
    Senate Resolution...........................................       241     1,224          81,100         111,000
    S.J. Resolution.............................................        37       176          11,200          16,000
    S. Con. Resolution..........................................        77       416          26,600          37,600
    House Bills.................................................     3,517    63,715       1,300,000       5,700,000
    H. J. Res...................................................        85       492          10,900          44,500
    H. Con. Res.................................................       239     1,222          26,900         110,800
    H. Conf. Reports & Reports..................................       488    22,888         360,500       2,000,000
    Treaties/Exec...............................................        29     1,180          97,900         100,300
    Public Laws.................................................       170     1,780         218,900         239,700
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Totals................................................     7,103   144,211       5,400,000      13,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Document Services

        The Document Service Section coordinates requests for printed
    legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
    within the Office of the Secretary, Senate committees, and the
    Government Printing Office. The section ensures that the most current
    version of all material is available, and that sufficient quantities
    are available to meet projected demands. The department also serves the
    combined leadership by coordinating the distribution of all Senate-
    introduced and Calendar bills, reports, resolutions, and conference
    reports, including all legislation which has passed the House.
    Distribution is made to the Senate Chamber, the Secretary's Office, and
    leadership offices.
        The primary responsibility of the Documents Service Section is to
    provide services to the Senate. However, the responsibility to the
    general public, the press, and other government agencies is virtually
    indistinguishable from services provided to the Senate. Requests for
    material are received at the walk-in counter, through the mail, by FAX,
    and recorded messages. Recorded messages and FAX messages operate
    twenty-four hours a day, and are filled the same day as received, as
    are mail requests. The newest method to obtain documents is through the
    new e-mail form posted on the Office of the Secretary of the Senate Web
    site. This Web site order form has been available for use since
    December 1, 1999. The Office of Printing and Document Services expects
    this site to be a popular and convenient method for members and staff
    to obtain documents.

    Summary of Annual Statistics

        The following chart is a summary of activities and trends in
    Document Services from the 105th Congress through the first session of
    the 106th Congress.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Calls      Public       Staff        Fax       Counter
               Calendar year/Congress/session              received      mail        phone      request    requests
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1997: 105/1st.......................................      60,296      12,739      23,672       7,261         N/A
    1998: 105/2nd.......................................      35,116       8,131      13,850       5,162     113,862
    1999: 106/1st.......................................      27,570       6,872      12,214       4,036     156,454
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Starting April 1, 1999, the Office of Printing and Document
    Services began categorizing incoming calls to the document specialist
    under three categories. The largest number of calls were classified as
    a standard call. This type of call is where the requestor knows the
    document needed by the identifying number, and the legislative document
    specialist is merely confirming that it is in stock. During the eight-
    month period from April 1 through December 31, 1999, this type of call
    accounted for 14,166, or 68 percent, of the calls made to the
    legislative document specialist. The other two categories require the
    legislative document specialist to spend more time with the requestor
    and have a greater knowledge of the legislative process. The
    informational category is where the legislative document specialist
    assists the requestor in finding the appropriate committee, agency,
    staff, or member to answer a request that is not within the
    department's jurisdiction. This type of exchange accounted for 4,791
    calls, or approximately 23 percent, of the phone requests during the
    eight-month period. The final category of phone request that was
    monitored is the research call. This is the most time-intensive call
    requiring skills akin to those of a research librarian. In the eight
    months of recorded statistics, 1,875 research requests were made,
    accounting for 9 percent of the legislative phone requests over this
    period.

    DocuTech Project

        The following tables summarize quantities and costs associated with
    on-demand (supplemental) printing of bills and reports during the
    second session of the 105th Congress and the first session of the 106th
    Congress. The first table compares on-site printing requests. The
    second table indicates work printed for other government agencies by
    GPO in order to more fully utilize the DocuTech machine. Costs are
    based upon a charge of 3.4 cents per page for Congressional work and
    2.5 cents per page for agency work.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Run    Original                    Cost      Total
                                                      Count    Length     Pages    Printed Pages    Each      Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DocuTech Document Services:
        Totals 1998...............................       423    23,904    25,442       1,700,000     $1.42   $33,959
        Totals 1999...............................       392    14,960    17,650         786,470      1.79    26,740
    DocuTech Agencies Services 1999: Totals 1999..       536   247,970    82,645       6,300,000       .64   158,890
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         OFFICE OF CAPTIONING SERVICES

        The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captions of
    Senate Floor debates for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons and
    unofficial electronic transcripts to Senate staff through the Senate
    Recording Studio web site.

    General Overview

        The quality of real-time captions created by this office continues
    to be the highest priority. Internal quality reviews are conducted on a
    continuous basis and the results tabulated for comparison purposes.

    Technology Update

        Year 2000 Compliance (Y2K) concerns were fully addressed by this
    office in 1998. No Y2K problems are anticipated next year.
        The Senate Recording Studio maintains an online database that
    contains the caption output of the Office of Captioning Services.
    Cooperative efforts during 1999 between the Senate Recording Studio and
    outside vendors resulted in the diagnosis and repair of key elements
    responsible for generating errors in the caption database. At the end
    of the First Session of the 106th Congress, approximately 80 percent of
    the known problems were resolved.

    2000 Objective

        The technology currently used for real-time captioning is not
    Windows compatible. Windows-based captioning software continues to be
    evaluated. It is hoped new software will be available for on-air
    testing and evaluation early next year.

                             SPECIAL PROJECTS--LIS

        The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system (2
    U.S.C. 123e) with the objective of providing desktop access to the
    content and status of all Senate legislative information and supporting
    documents. The LIS Project Office manages the project, oversees the
    Senate's outside contractor, KPMG Consulting, and coordinates LIS
    training for Senate users.
        The LIS is a mandated system (Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative
    Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C. 123e) to provide a ``comprehensive Senate
    Legislative Information System'' to capture, store, manage, and
    distribute Senate documents. The program is directed through the LIS
    Project Office (PO). In partnership with the Contracting Officer's
    Technical Representative, the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), and the Senate's
    outside contractor, KPMG Consulting, plus interface coordination with
    the Senate Policy Committees, Library of Congress (LOC), Government
    Printing Office (GPO), and the House of Representatives, the LIS PO
    successfully completed the major development and deployment of a Year
    2000 compliant LIS Document Management System (LIS/DMS) in December
    1999.
        In 1998, the focus of the LIS was on analyzing and reviewing
    systems requirements, on the review of related projects (e.g., LOC LIS
    Retrieval System) and initiatives at the Senate and other agencies, and
    on gathering information integral to the implementation of the LIS. The
    Committee Scheduling application, developed and deployed during the
    year, replaced the older system. This system enables the Daily Digest
    Office to schedule committee and subcommittee meetings and allows all
    Senate users to retrieve information about committee meetings and
    hearings via a convenient web-browser implementation. The Amendment
    Tracking System (ATS), also deployed in 1998, enables the SAA staff to
    scan floor amendments as they are received at the Bill Clerk's desk.
    Within 20 minutes, Senators and staff can view the text of the
    amendment from their computers.
        This past year found the primary LIS focus on the development of
    LIS/DMS and its interfaces to other legislative systems. The system was
    successfully implemented and deployed into production in December 1999
    with the Year 2000 LIS End-to-End tests a success and no Year 200
    issues to date. The Standard Generalized Markup Language/eXtensible
    Markup Language (SGML/XML) Feasibility Study was also initiated during
    this period. These are described in detail below.
        For 2000, the strategic focus of LIS development will be on
    enhancements to the LIS/DMS, the completion of the Bills and
    Resolutions SGML/XML Feasibility Study and its implementation,
    initiation of the LIS Senate Recording Studio, Transcription, and
    Closed Captioning Project, LIS Retrieval enhancements, and the
    Retention, Distribution, and archive Policy Implementation. The
    Recording Studio, Transcription, and Closed Captioning Project shall
    involve the mechanism that must be put into place to make Senate
    Recording Studio data available within the LIS system; the Retention,
    Distribution, and archive Policy Implementation shall implement the
    capture and archiving of historical information collected and made
    available through the LIS.

    Standards and Document Management/SGML

        At the direction of the Chairman of Rules and Administration
    Committee and the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration,
    the Secretary and the Clerk of the House of Representatives are
    developing a standard document/data exchange between the Senate, House
    of Representatives, LOC, and GPO using the Standard Generalized Markup
    Language (SGML). The first joint Senate and House SGML project to be
    completed was the Biographical Directory, Guide to Research
    Collections, and Selected Bibliographies of Members of the United
    States Congress. The data is edited and maintained by staff in the
    Senate Historical Office and the Legislative Resource Center in the
    Office of the Clerk using WordPerfect 8 + SGML using a Document Type
    Definition (DTD) and application created by the Legislative Computing
    Services in the Office of the Clerk.
        In early 1999, following the completion of an evaluation of SGML
    editors, WordPerfect 8 + SGML was chosen by the Senate as the editor to
    be used for the production of bills, amendments, and resolutions using
    SGML. However, during the development of this application it was
    determined that WordPerfect 8 + SGML was not robust enough to support
    the complicated and varied processes used by the Senate Office of the
    Legislative Counsel and the Senate Enrolling Clerk to produce bills.
    Thus, the eXtensible Markup Language (XML), a subset of SGML, became
    more prominent. In August 1999, the Secretary of the Senate and the
    Clerk of the House, with the approval of the Senate Committee on Rules
    and Administration and the Committee on House Administration, invited
    representatives from the House and Senate Legislative Counsels, Law
    Revision Counsel, GPO, LOC, Congressional Research Service, Chief
    Administrative Officer of the House, and SAA to participate in a Bills
    and Resolutions SGML/XML Feasibility Study to ``evaluate SGML/XML
    editors, develop XML style sheets, evaluate the SGML/XML capability of
    Microcomp, and examine the use of digital signaturing as it relates to
    these processes.''
        The goal of the Feasibility Study is to determine if it is possible
    to create an easy-to-use XML application for the authoring of
    legislative documents. The study is focused on the authoring and
    composition of bills and resolutions by the Offices of the Legislative
    Counsel and the Enrolling Clerks, but also takes into account the need
    for search and retrieval, conversion of legacy data, and electronic
    exchange of documents. Two Windows-based editors were chosen for the
    Feasibility Study: XMetaL by SoftQuad and WordPerfect 9 + SGML by
    Corel. Another important process taking place during the Feasibility
    Study is the validation and refinement of the Bill DTD.
        Also in 1999, DTDs were developed for Conference Reports, the U.S.
    Code, and Committee Reports by Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. and
    for Compilations by PBM Associates. As application development begins
    for each of these document types, the respective DTDs shall undergo a
    rigorous validation process similar to the one currently being
    conducted for the Bill DTD.
        Efforts for the current year will focus on completing the
    Feasibility Study for Bills and for determining implementation
    strategies. Through participation in the Legislative SGML Coordinating
    Committee and the Legislative SGML Technical Committee, LIS PO shall
    continue to work closely with the House of Representatives to ensure
    Senate requirements are met and that the LIS is compatible with the
    House information systems for purposes of document/data exchange.

    LIS Document Management System (LIS/DMS)

        The two year six month effort to design and replace the LEGIS
    legacy system with the LIS/DMS Year 2000 compliant system began in May
    1997. The first year of the program focused on the identification of
    requirements, specifications, and implementation plans, combined with
    the evaluation of selected systems maintained and/or in development by
    the Senate technical Operations Division of SAA, the GPO, and the LOC.
    Significant accomplishments that laid the foundation for the current
    LIS are listed below.
        LIS System Requirements; LIS/DMS Requirements, replacement system
    for LEGIS; LEGIS Re-Engineering, an effort to replace LEGIS, later
    terminated in favor of a new design and development; LOC/LIS Review,
    defined the required enhancements to retrieval and security systems;
    LIS Architecture System Document; Roll Call Votes Web Interface, made
    votes available to Senate and public; Amendment Tracking System (ATS);
    and Committee Scheduling System (CSS).
        In August 1998, the development of the Year 2000 complaint LIS/DMS
    began with system design and by December 1999, the system
    implementation was completed and LIS/DMS became a production system.
    The LIS/DMS replaces the legacy system, LEGIS, which was found non-Year
    2000 compliant. The new system provides a central repository for all
    Senate information including legislation and support documentation. The
    system collects, manages, stores, retrieves, and reports various types
    of data by providing accessibility, management, and tracking of
    information in various formats. The LIS/DMS directly serves the clerks
    of the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate Library, Policy Committees,
    and the legislative branch agencies--House of Representatives, LOC, and
    GPO. Sixty-eight reports and over 145 data entry screens facilitate
    this capability. By transmitting data to the LOC LIS Retrieval System,
    the LIS/DMS expands its user base to include the Senate members and
    staff and the public. The LIS production system also established
    interfaces to the Amendment Tracking System and the Committee
    Scheduling System.

    LIS Year 2000 Compliance

        To test Year 2000 compliance the LIS Project Office conducted two
    LIS end-to-end tests involving all interfaces/data exchanges. The goal
    for the systems test was to confirm that the most frequently used paths
    within the Senate legislative system as a whole (systems within the
    Senate and interfaces with external systems) could operate correctly in
    a Year 2000 environment. The first test was conducted during three days
    of the August Senate recess (August 18-20, 1999) while LIS/DMS was
    still under development; and involved the following stakeholders and
    systems: Bill Clerk; Legislative Clerk; Library of Congress (LOC);
    Government Printing Office (GPO); Amendment Tracking System (ATS);
    Executive Clerk; Daily Digest Editor; House Information Resources
    (HIR); Policy Committees (RPC/DPC); and Committee Scheduling System
    (CSS).
        The second Year 2000 test conducted during two days, November 30
    and December 1, 1999, included the stakeholders and systems listed
    above plus the Parliamentarian, Official Reporters of Debates, Senate
    Librarians, Enrolling Clerk, and the Journal Clerk. The conclusion at
    the completion of the second test was that there were no observed Year
    2000 related problems. As a result of the two tests, Congressional
    Records were generated for each virtual test day.

    LIS Training

        The Legislative Information Systems, including the LIS/DMS, are
    intended to serve varied groups of users, many with unique
    requirements. The primary objective of LIS training is to prepare
    Senate staff to test, use, manage, and maintain the LIS.
        With the new release of the LIS/DMS the following groups were
    identified for training: Senate clerks, system administrators,
    including Secretary of the Senate Information Systems/Computer staff as
    well as SAA application development personnel, Help Desk personnel,
    Enterprise IT personnel, and end users in Senators' and Committee
    offices. Since each of these groups has distinct needs, the training
    approach was highly customized. The training curriculum for the users
    included several demonstrations of the capabilities in addition to labs
    and practical exercises to reinforce skills. Realistic practice
    scenarios to enable authentic assessment of system performance were
    provided. A LIS/DMS Guide for Senate Clerks details data entry and
    screen usage and the LIS/DMS on-line help focuses on specific system
    functions and data screens. As test versions of the LIS/DMS systems
    were released for user acceptance testing, the LIS trainer conducted
    training to introduce the users to new capabilities and to prepare the
    user to participate in testing. Each session contained two components,
    one for common system functions and the second customized for each
    office. At these sessions, the Clerks had the opportunity to learn the
    new features and to provide comments and feedback to the team of
    developers.
        SAA application development personnel and the Secretary of the
    Senate Computer staff attended vendor-supplied technical training
    courses throughout the year. These courses were designed for those that
    will be developing, supporting and maintaining the LIS/DMS. Each group
    involved in the technical administration of the LIS/DMS participated in
    training appropriate for the responsibilities they assumed with the new
    system. SAA and Secretary of the Senate Computer Staff received the
    Training Guide for System Administrators, which detailed installation,
    configuration, maintenance and security of the system. In January,
    2000, these development and support personnel attended vendor refresher
    courses and are scheduled to attend training conducted by the
    implementor, KPMG, to facilitate knowledge transfer to the SAA team
    that will be providing sustaining engineering of the LIS.
        Collaborating together, the LOC, the LIS PO conducted two training
    sessions for the Senate staff. Held in December and January these
    sessions reviewed the new enhancements available though the LOC LIS
    Retrieval System at the LIS website on www.congress.gov. In addition,
    the Senate Office of Education and Training provides a course on LIS,
    which is offered twice a month to the Senate public.

    LIS Communications

        The establishment of the LIS User Group and the production of
    informational materials and marketing tools have successfully
    introduced the LIS to users throughout the Senate.
        The LIS User Group collects Senate offices' requirements and
    priorities to ensure enhancements to the LIS meet the needs of a broad
    a range of Senate researchers as possible. The requirements and
    feedback provided by this User Group is recorded and factored into
    decision of the LIS Project Office.
        LIS informational materials and marketing tools, designed to ensure
    that Senate staffers are aware of resources available, are continually
    updated and distributed to Senate staffers. The Office of the Secretary
    has developed several ``Quick Cards'' with key information on using the
    Amendment Tracking System, using the Committee Scheduling System,
    finding Roll Call Votes and retrieving information from the LIS
    Retrieval System. These cards continue to be effective tools, and as
    new capabilities are added to the system, updates will be distributed.

                     JOINT OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

        The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
    training and development opportunities for all 7,000 Senate staff both
    in Washington, DC and in the states. There are three branches within
    the department. The technical training branch is responsible for
    providing technical training support for approved software packages
    used in either Washington or the state offices. The computer training
    staff provide instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions;
    specialized vendor provided training; computer based training; and
    informal training and support services. The professional training
    branch provides courses for all Senate staff in areas including:
    management and leadership development, human resource issues and staff
    benefits, legislative and staff information, new staff and intern
    information.
        The Health Promotion branch provides seminars, classes and
    screenings on health related and wellness issues. This branch also
    coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and four
    blood drives each year.

    Training Classes

        The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 417 classes in
    1999. Total enrollment of Senate employees in these classes were 7,012.
        Of the above total, in the Technical Training area, 262 classes
    were held with a total attendance of 1,852 students. An additional 439
    staff received coaching on various software packages and other computer
    related issues. Technical training staff also traveled to thirteen
    State Senate offices to provide System Administration and user-end
    training. In all of these instances, it was more cost efficient to have
    a member of the technical training staff travel to these offices than
    it was to have the training conducted by a local vendor. In the
    professional development area 155 classes were held with a total
    attendance of 5,160 students. Individual managers and supervisors are
    also encouraged to request customized training for their offices on
    areas of need. The Office of Education and Training is available to
    work with teams on issues related to team performance, communication or
    conflict resolution. In the Health Promotion area, 351 Senate staff
    participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These
    activities included: cancer screening, bone density screening and
    seminars on health related topics. Additionally 1,002 staff
    participated in the Annual Health Fair held in June.

    State Training

        Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
    D.C. based staff, the Office of Education and Training has worked this
    Fall with the Office Manager's Council and selected State Directors to
    develop a curriculum for Senate staff from state offices. This
    training, entitled ``State Fair'', is scheduled to begin in March 2000.
    The focus for this year's program will be on management and leadership
    development skills for state staff with management responsibility.
    Topics will include: Public Speaking; Motivation; Managing Change;
    Ethics; Legalities of Casework; Letter and Report Writing; Delegation
    Skills; Stress Management; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Developing a
    High Performing Teams; Conflict Management and Performance Management.
    The courses will be conducted over three days with the final day of the
    program being dedicated to computer training.
        The program will be repeated in late June to allow for maximum
    attendance. Next year the ``State Fair'' curriculum will change and the
    topics will be focused on the learning needs of staff from the state
    offices. The state offices will be responsible for the cost of travel,
    food and lodging for those attending this program.

                             Administrative Offices

                               Disbursing Office

              FRONT COUNTER--ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

        The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate
    business and financial activity. The Front Counter maintains the
    Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations.
    Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. Training is
    provided to newly authorized payroll contacts along with continuing
    guidance to all contacts in the execution of business operations. It is
    the receiving point for most incoming expense vouchers, payroll
    actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is the initial
    verification point to ensure that paperwork received in the Disbursing
    Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations, and
    statutes. The Front Counter is the first line of service provided to
    Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees
    (permanent and temporary) who will be working in the Capitol Hill
    Senate offices are administered the required oath of office and
    personnel affidavit and provided verbal and written detailed
    information regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is
    certified to new and state employees for issuance of their Senate I.D.
    card. Cash advances are issued to Senate staff authorized for official
    Senate travel and travelers' checks are available on a non-profit basis
    to assist the traveler. Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging
    from pay, benefits, taxes, voucher processing, reporting, laws, and
    Senate regulations, and must always be answered accurately and fully to
    provide the highest degree of customer service. Cash and checks
    received from Senate entities as part of their daily business are
    handled through the front counter and become part of the Senate's
    accountability of federally appropriated funds and are then processed
    through the Senate's general ledger system.

    General Activities

        The Front Counter issued approximately 1,800 cash advances for
    official Senate travel, received more than 20,000 checks from Senate
    entities, administered oath and personnel affidavits to more than 4,500
    new Senate staff, maintained brochures for 14 Federal health carriers
    and distributed approximately 4,000 brochures to staff during the
    annual FEHB open season.

                                PAYROLL SECTION

        The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
    and is responsible for the following: processing, verifying, and
    warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office
    by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee
    staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; issuing salary
    payments to the above employees; maintaining the Automated Clearing
    House (ACH) FEDLINE facilities for the normal transmittal of payroll
    deposits to the Federal Reserve; distributing the appropriate payroll
    expenditure and allowance reports to the individual offices; issuing
    the proper withholding and agency contributions reports to the
    Accounting Department; and transmitting the proper Thrift Savings Plan
    (TSP) information to the National Finance Center (NFC), while
    maintaining earnings records for distribution to the Social Security
    Administration, and maintaining employees' taxable earnings records for
    W-2 statements, which are prepared by this section. The Payroll Section
    is also responsible for the payroll portion of the Report of the
    Secretary of the Senate.

    Y2K Testing and Certification

        The Information Technology Department of the Sergeant at Arms
    released their U.S. Senate version of the Integral 9.5 system to the
    Disbursing Office for acceptance testing. By late April, all aspects of
    the system had been tested and approved for production. The next step
    was to run a parallel production for a sixty-day period to ensure the
    accuracy of the new processing system. The May-June 1999 parallel
    allowed the 9.5 system to go live July 1, 1999, 90 days ahead of
    schedule. At this time the managers of the project learned that new
    processing equipment was being installed to upgrade the operating
    platform of the OS390 system during the month of May. The equipment
    upgrades produced associated software upgrades, delaying the parallel
    and created the need to re-evaluate the results of the earlier testing.
    Finally, the operating platform was ready and the parallel processing
    was evaluated. All glitches and deviations were noted and corrected.
    The Y2K compliant Payroll/Personnel System went operational on October
    1, 1999.
        The Payroll/Personnel System was not the only system being
    evaluated for Y2K compliance. The Federal Reserve FEDLINE system went
    through a thorough series of compliance testing. The first portion of
    the test related to the equipment the Disbursing Office was using to
    transmit information to the Federal Reserve. The test results showed
    that the current PCs being used to process the ACH files were Y2K
    compliant. However, they advised the Disbursing Office to upgrade the
    processing system to the most current technology available to prevent
    any unforeseen equipment failure at a later date. A series of live
    tests with the Federal Reserve test regions proved that all equipment
    was Y2K compliant for the processing of ACH files.
        The last aspect of Y2K certification was to prove to GAO, through
    the Y2K Project Office that the Payroll/Personnel System was compliant.
    A battery of more than 160 individual processing tests were compiled by
    the managers of the system to prove compliance, then they applied these
    tests to the system to verify compliance. Subsequently, the Payroll/
    Personnel System was certified compliant.

    Integrated Report of the Secretary of the Senate Processing

        During the Spring of 1999, a Report of the Secretary of the Senate
    team was created within the Disbursing Office to manage information
    contained within FAMIS and the Payroll/Personnel System. The objective
    of this team was to work with the system consultants to produce a
    detailed document of expenditures with a minimal amount of manual
    editing. The Payroll Section merged two computer-generated tables
    together to create an extract that could be absorbed into the FAMIS
    system, thus detailing the payroll data in the Report. Once the Y2K
    system certification was complete, a new data element was created in
    the Payroll/Personnel Title Dictionary dedicated to the insertion of
    the full un-abbreviated employee title into the Report. This file
    completed the full integration of both systems into one reporting unit.

                           EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECTION

        The Employee Benefits Section's (EBS) primary responsibilities are
    administration of Senate employees' health and life insurance and
    retirement programs for the Senate. The Section's work includes
    research and verification of prior Senate or other federal service for
    new appointees. EBS prepares these forms for payroll input and after
    they are returned, verifies the accuracy of the information when the
    Official Personnel Folder is received. Employment verifications for
    loans, the Bar, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
    Defense, and for outside insurance are completed in EBS. Unemployment
    claim forms are completed, and employees are counseled. Department of
    Labor billings for unemployment paid to Senate employees are checked in
    EBS and submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section to be paid.
    Designations of Beneficiaries for FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and for unpaid
    compensation are filed and checked by EBS.

    General Activities

        The annual FEHB Open Season was held and over 700 employees changed
    plans. A great number of FEHB plans changed, and due to non-support
    from computer programs, the deleted plans, mergers, address and name
    changes had to be updated manually.
        The FEHB Open Season Health Fair was attended by about 800
    employees and since the Fair is well run, it is open to all employees
    on the Hill, including House, USCP, Architect & Senate restaurant
    employees.
        There were 2 TSP Open Seasons, and the employee changes remained
    about the same as normal, 800 each time, or 1 in 7.
        Mortgage rates, still low, kept employment verifications coming in
    at a rapid pace, averaging 130 per month.
        Unemployment verifications, termination packages, transcripts of
    service for employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks
    associated with employees changing jobs were all heavy this year, as
    approximately 700 staffers lost their jobs January 2, 1999. Another 700
    entered on duty on the new staffs, and this required prior employment
    research and verification, new FEHB, FEGLI, CSRS/FERS and TSP
    enrollments, and the associated requests for backup verification.
        Counseling, retirement planning, and processing, were very heavy in
    1999 since most of the Members leaving were long term Members who were
    retiring. Total retirement cases processed equaled 168 (63 CSRS + 95
    FERS, 10 deaths), which was about average for a year.

                     DISBURSING OFFICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Headed by the Chief Financial Officer, the mission of Disbursing
    Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all central
    financial policies, procedures, and activities to produce an auditable
    consolidated financial statement for the Senate and to provide
    professional customer service, training and confidential financial
    guidance to all Senate accounting locations. DOFM is segmented into
    four functional departments: Accounting, Budget, Financial Systems, and
    Policy and Control. The CFO coordinates the activities of the four
    functional departments, establishes central financial policies and
    procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the HR Administrator, and
    carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk of the Senate.
        In an effort to evaluate the resource requirements of the
    Disbursing Office, the Secretary of the Senate has initiated an
    organizational review and position description analysis. Staff of the
    Disbursing Office have participated in the review being conducted by
    the General Accounting Office. Results are anticipated in the early
    spring of 2000. Until such time as the organizational review is
    completed, it has not been possible to begin to staff the budget and
    policy and control functions, or to fully staff accounting and
    financial systems. To the greatest extent possible, existing staff
    perform multiple functions on a workload priority basis. Progress
    producing auditable consolidated financial statements is limited with
    existing resources. The functional department responsibilities are
    diagramed below:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA21.001

        As was the case in 1998, the most significant event and activity of
    the past year for Disbursing Office Financial Management has been the
    management responsibility for the Senate's Financial Management
    Information System (FMIS). One of the clear mandates of FMIS was to
    become year 2000 compliant. A great deal of effort replacing financial
    systems and testing the replacements for date compliance occurred
    during 1999. The Disbursing Office is pleased to report no year 2000
    related problems were detected in the Y2K acceptance testing or in the
    actual date rollover. DOFM staff resources and Senate support vendors
    were utilized for the acceptance testing spearheaded by the Sergeant at
    Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. Much additional progress has been
    made and the following paragraphs will give a status of FMIS and what
    has been accomplished.
        In 1998, the Senate initiated a four-phase approach for the
    acquisition and implementation of an integrated financial management
    system. These four phases are defined below:
        Replacement.--The initial phase was the replacement of the Senate's
    core financial systems with a single integrated year 2000 compliant
    Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system. In this initial phase, FAMIS
    4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 were implemented in the Disbursing Office in
    replacement of Disbursing Office Voucher Entry System (DOVES) and in
    the offices of the Sergeant at Arms as an upgrade to FAMIS 3.2 and
    ADPICS 4.0. Additionally, a limited number of system interfaces were
    either created or revised.
        Rollout.--Following the initial replacement of the Senate's core
    financial systems, the rollout of these solutions to Member and
    Committee offices was scheduled for fiscal year 1999. During this
    phase, all Senate Committee Expense Allowance System (SCEAS) and
    Senators Office Accounting System (SOAS) users were migrated to Web
    FMIS.
        Reporting.--As a result of the implementation of a single
    integrated financial system the Senate planned to take advantage of the
    new system by beginning to compile, develop, and distribute financial
    information that was impossible or impractical to develop in the past.
    This phase began concurrently with the rollout during fiscal year 1999.
        Reengineering.--After the migration to a central Senate-wide
    financial system, the Senate desired to ensure that the FMIS technology
    platform remained consistent with industry standards. Beginning at the
    end of fiscal year 1999 and into fiscal year 2000, the Senate began to
    implement a strategic approach of implementation and integration with
    web-based architectures and technologies.

    Background

        Upon the conclusion of the Phase I, the initial intent was to
    initiate and simultaneously execute Phases II (Rollout) and III
    (Reporting). The assumption was that Member and Committee offices would
    use ADPICS as their primary accounting system as a replacement for
    SCEAS and SOAS. It was also recognized that additional reporting tools
    would be required for Member and Committee users, though the
    architecture or methodology for the creation of these reports was not
    yet in place.
        Based upon the experiences of a group of pilot users in the early
    part of 1999, it was determined that ADPICS would not fit the needs of
    the Member and Committee user group and the Senate began to consider
    several alternative approaches. After much careful consideration of the
    alternatives, the Senate ultimately chose to implement Web FMIS, which
    utilizes a web-based delivery model for budget functions, data entry,
    and reporting for Member and Committee offices.
        The restructuring of the Rollout Phase resulted in a significant
    advance in the overall FMIS strategic schedule. The long term strategic
    plan for the Senate, adopted in the fall of 1997, called for migrating
    to a client-server core financial system, consistent with the Senate's
    technology architecture by no later than September 30, 2003. The
    Reengineering Phase, which was not scheduled to begin until at least
    October 2000, actually began during the spring of 1999. Thus, at the
    end of fiscal year 1999, in place of the ADPICS system that was
    originally scheduled for rollout and within the original time frame
    mandated for SOAS replacement, the offices began to use a web-based
    system for data entry and reporting that is structured upon an advanced
    intranet-based technical infrastructure and architecture.
        In order to provide a descriptive account of the FMIS
    implementation, this document defines time periods that are hereinafter
    referred to as Implementation Periods. These phases are described in
    summary and in detail as follows:
        Implementation Period I: November 1997-September 1998.--Though work
    on FMIS began earlier than this date, this Phase begins with the
    approximate time that the Senate decided to begin implementation of
    KPMG's Federal FAMIS and ADPICS as the replacement to DOVES and the
    prior version of FAMIS and ADPICS that were in use by the Sergeant at
    Arms. The primary activities during this period were the creation of a
    classification structure, the actual FAMIS and ADPICS implementation,
    creation or revision of a limited number of systems interfaces, and
    creation of a small number of mission critical modifications.
        Implementation Period II: October 1998-December 1999.--The initial
    planed activities for the period were Rollout and Reporting. Based on
    feedback from the pilot ADPICS users group, reengineering efforts that
    were not initially scheduled to begin during this period were
    initiated. The activities performed during this period included system
    performance improvements, Office Ledger reports, Report of the
    Secretary, Web FMIS and Y2K testing.
        Implementation Period III: January 2000-approximately October
    2000.--The focus during this time frame will continue to be on
    reporting and reengineering activities. Operational support is required
    to maintain and support the production environment, the FMIS system,
    and Senate users over the remainder of the fiscal year. In addition,
    the Senate is considering other development activities that will move
    the Senate toward its ultimate vision of an integrated, paperless,
    efficient financial management system. These include continued
    improvements in reporting, interfaces for data capture of web
    transactions, other interfaces, imaging, digital authentication, and
    auditable financial statements.
        Future Activities.--It is anticipated that development activities
    in support of FMIS will extend beyond the time period defined in
    Implementation Period III. The Future Activities period provides a
    placeholder for these projects. As Implementation Period III
    progresses, these projects can be reevaluated and reprioritized as
    necessary. Items in this category are subject to change and will be
    modified based upon the schedule and outcomes of Implementation Period
    III.

     IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD I (NOVEMBER 1997-SEPTEMBER 1998) ACCOMPLISHMENTS

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA21.002

        The Implementation Period I efforts were focused on replacing
    antiquated systems and processes, culminating in the implementation of
    FAMIS 4.0, ADPICS 4.5, and associated processes by October 1, 1998.
    This section provides a brief overview of the projects and achievements
    of the following projects that were executed in Implementation Period
    I:

    Completed Projects

        The following is a list and description of the projects that were
    completed during the initial Implementation Period of FMIS:

                Project Office

        The FMIS Project Office was established and given responsibility
    for the following main objectives over the project duration:
      --Development and definition of high-level project vision and
            objectives.
      --Definition of proper scope of each phase prior to startup,
            including goals, required resources, and budget of the project.
      --Oversight and maintenance of projects to ensure that all phases of
            the project are properly synchronized.

                Project Management

        The Project Management team was created and given responsibility
    for the following tasks over the project duration:
      --Coordinate with the Project Office to ensure that the Project
            Office responsibilities are carried out by the project teams on
            a daily basis.
      --Provide the organization of the individual and overall projects
            through the definition of scope and objectives, general skill
            set requirements, responsibilities, and draft specific skill
            sets, and roles.
      --Communicate project responsibilities, assist the Project Office in
            the review of individual resumes or background information, as
            well as orientation of project responsibilities, tasks,
            assignments, and reporting requirements to the individual
            project managers and project teams.

                System Requirements Review and Gap Analysis

        The Requirements Review and Gap Analysis was initiated to review
    and analyze the FMIS core accounting and purchasing functional
    requirements, and to conduct a gap analysis with the requirements
    against the KPMG Federal FAMIS 4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 products. KPMG
    utilized the Senate's FMIS functional requirements and business
    processes generated by the Senate with the assistance of Booz, Allen &
    Hamilton and finalized by the Senate's FMIS project team as the
    baseline. The next steps included:

      --Time-phasing of the FMIS functional requirements to identify the
            priorities for the initial implementation versus requirements
            for future functionality.
      --Comparison of the Senate's requirements to the functionality of
            KPMG's baseline Federal FAMIS and ADPICS products. Gaps in
            functionality were identified and, when appropriate, budgetary
            cost estimates were prepared to assist the Senate in
            prioritizing requests for programming modifications.

                System Architecture Review and Design

        This project focused on the system design for the Senate's FMIS
    solutions environment. The effort included the architectural design of
    the core accounting, purchasing, asset management, travel, payroll,
    budgeting, and revolving funds components of the Senate-envisioned FMIS
    solution. Specific accomplishments include:

      --Documentation of the existing financial environment of the Senate,
            including systems and interfaces.
      --A high-level, time-phased migration plan for the core accounting,
            purchasing, asset management, travel, payroll, budgeting, and
            revolving funds components of the Senate-envisioned FMIS
            solution was developed.
      --Creation of a detailed architecture was developed for the Phase I
            environment. Detailed analysis and documentation of the
            architecture for future phases were deferred in order to focus
            on the short-term implementation of FAMIS and ADPICS by October
            1, 1998.

                FAMIS Upgrade

        The focus of this project was the delivery of a single financial
    management system that replaced DOVES General Ledger (both the
    mainframe and PC systems) and supported the migration of the Sergeant
    at Arms Financial Management Organization from the Federal FAMIS
    Version 3.2 environment to the Senate Disbursing Office's Federal FAMIS
    Version 4.0 environment. Specific accomplishments include:

      --DOVES (both the mainframe and PC systems) General Ledger was
            replaced with FAMIS 4.0, a single financial management system.
      --The Sergeant at Arms Financial Management Organization migrated
            from the Federal FAMIS Version 3.2 environment to Federal FAMIS
            Version 4.0.
      --Conversion from a cash basis accounting to an accrual or
            obligation-based accounting and migration of the Senate's
            general ledger to the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger.
      --Creation of a Checkwriter module to enable the Senate to function
            as a non-Treasury disbursing office. The Checkwriter includes
            the capability for electronic payments.

                ADPICS Upgrade

        Implementation of ADPICS 4.5 to replace the Sergeant at Arms ADPICS
    Version 4.0 and the Secretary of the Senate's SOAS were the objectives
    of this project. Specific accomplishments include:

      --ADPICS 4.5 was implemented in the Senate Disbursing Office and the
            offices of the Secretary of the Senate.
      --The Sergeant at Arms Financial Management Organization migrated
            from the ADPICS Version 4.0 to ADPICS Version 4.5.

                Account Classification and Reporting

        The purpose of this project was to develop the Senate's
    classification structure to support both its external and internal
    financial and budgetary performance reporting, including the new
    Senate-wide reporting. Elements defined include:

      --General Ledger, fund, object, organization, program, function,
            grant, project, user code, and appropriation control.
      --The Senate consolidated and standardized several distinct expense
            classifications employing the OMB structure for federal
            agencies.

                Security Assessment

        The scope of this project was revised to focus on the security
    requirements necessary for the upgrade and implementation of ADPICS and
    FAMIS. These activities were limited in scope to focus on the
    implementation of FAMIS and ADPICS by October 1, 1998 and were subsumed
    within the FAMIS and ADPICS projects. Furthermore, the capability of
    FAMIS and ADPICS to function within the Senate's ACF2 security
    environment reduced the need for additional efforts in this area.

                Acceptance Task Force/Acceptance Test Team

        The focus of this project was to ensure acceptance of the FMIS
    systems being deployed. Specific accomplishments include:

      --An Acceptance Task Force was created.
      --A methodology was created to apply against each FMIS project that
            documented the satisfaction of the functional requirements
            demonstration process.
      --Upon completion of the methodology, the Acceptance Task Force
            transitioned to an Acceptance Test Team and developed
            acceptance test plans for each project. Testing scripts were
            mapped to functional requirements and accounting scenarios were
            defined, providing the Senate with a comprehensive test plan to
            validate performance of the new system.
      --A team from James Martin Government Consulting was assembled to
            validate the testing plan and results.
      --The Test Team organized, monitored, and tracked testing results
            during testing both prior to and after implementation of the
            system.

                FMIS Interfaces

        Within this project, the following FMIS interfaces were designed,
    developed, tested, and deployed:

        Integral (Payroll System) to (FAMIS) Vendor File.--Creates and
    updates employees as vendors in FAMIS. This interface was designed in
    accordance with Senate requirements for maintaining confidentiality of
    employee information.
        FAMIS/ADPICS Vendor File to HTTP Browser.--This is not a system
    interface in the traditional sense, but is used to provide, on demand,
    vendor information to operators of Integral, SOAS, and Solomon.
        Office Allowance System (OAS) to FAMIS (via Standard Interface).--
    This interface is responsible for providing extracts of actual and
    projected payroll expenditures from OAS to FAMIS using the FAMIS
    Standard Interface.
        FAMIS to SOAS.--This interface is required by SOAS and other
    systems for reconciliation with FAMIS. Crystal Reports will be used to
    prepare the reconciliation file in ASCII format. The ASCII file is then
    converted into Paradox. While design overview of this interface was
    completed, design of the interface using Crystal Reports, testing, and
    implementation was deferred to Implementation Period II.

                Funds Advance Tracking System Conversion

        The purpose of this project was to modify FATS which was being
    utilized by the Senate Disbursing Office in conjunction with DOVES.
    Specific accomplishments include:

      --The Fund Advance Tracking System (FATS) used by the Senate
            Disbursing Office was modified in conjunction with the
            Disbursing Office Voucher Entry System (DOVES).
      --Application source code was reviewed to determine a variety of
            software modifications and subsequently modified to accommodate
            the following major changes:
      --Code linking FATS functionality to DOVES was removed to reenable
            the application to function independently.
      --All date processing in the system was modified to 8-byte date
            format to assure full Y2K functionality.
      --All file transfer processing in the system was converted from a
            hardware-based protocol to a TCP/IP/FTP (software-based)
            protocol.
      --The system was unit tested and ported to a Y2K compliant Windows
            NT-based LAN platform, then file descriptions and data were
            converted and copied to the new Windows NT LAN.
      --The FATS application was then thoroughly system tested by Sergeant
            at Arms Technical Operations staff prior to user delivery.
      --Sergeant at Arms Technical Operations staff assisted the Senate
            Disbursing Office staff with integrated acceptance and parallel
            testing prior to production implementation.

                Mission Critical Modifications

        The focus of this project was the completion of the following ten
    modifications to baseline Federal ADPICS 4.5 and FAMIS 4.0 software:
        Requisition, purchase order, and change order accounting format
    change.--The format for the aforementioned three documents was modified
    in order to include and print a job number and description on the
    accounting line on the pertinent document.
        Sequential line number change on the printed purchase order.--
    Baseline ADPICS 4.5 was modified so that the line numbers on a printed
    purchase order will always be sequential, beginning with 1.
        Default interface processing.--Baseline ADPICS 4.5 was modified so
    that when either a requisition or a direct purchase order is
    established and posted to the system with a specific interface code,
    the interface type of all documents, made subsequent to the
    aforementioned documents (e.g., vouchers and change orders), default to
    the interface type of the requisition or the direct purchase order.
        Default disbursement type for direct vouchers in ADPICS.--Baseline
    ADPICS 4.5 was modified to change the default on the disbursement type
    in direct vouchers from single (``S'') to multiple (``M''.)
        Reversal of the Vendor Interface.--Baseline ADPICS and FAMIS
    systems were modified so that the initial point of entry of vendors to
    the system is FAMIS (rather than ADPICS) which provides the Senate with
    enhanced vendor information and security.
        Enter and report on service and obligation dates.--Service begin
    and end dates were added to the FAMIS posting process so that document
    service dates can be stored on the FAMIS document file. This data is
    necessary for the semiannual Report of the Secretary.
        Addition of an edit on the taxpayer ID field in FAMIS.--The
    baseline FAMIS system was modified so that a specific identification
    number placed on the FAML5460 screen for a particular vendor cannot be
    posted a second time for another vendor, unless the user confirms by
    selecting ``F10, Save'' twice.
        Accounting Pick List in ADPICS.--Baseline ADPICS was modified to
    provide the Senate with the capability for users to select, in a manner
    similar to the functionality currently available in FAMIS, the
    appropriate accounting information for direct voucher documents.
        Change Order Indicator on 2100 screen.--Baseline ADPICS was
    modified to provide the Senate with this feature. A field was placed on
    the 2100 screen with a Yes (``Y'') or No (``N'') indicator that will
    default to ``N'' when the requisition is created.
        Voucher Cancellation/Funds Restoration Modification.--Baseline
    ADPICS and FAMIS were modified so that when a voucher is canceled in
    ADPICS, the amount that was originally liquidated by the voucher from
    the purchase order document in ADPICS will automatically be restored to
    the document in both FAMIS and ADPICS. This was initiated in Phase I
    and completed during Phase II.

                SOAS 99

        Significant changes were made to SOAS for use during fiscal year
    1999. Some of these were as a result of the Senate's adoption of a new
    classification structure and to be more consistent with FAMIS and
    ADPICS. Other changes were performed as a result of incorporation of
    user feedback. SOAS99 provided Member offices a transition voucher
    processing system that incorporated the Senate's new expense
    classification.

                Projects Deferred or Reduced in Scope

        The following projects originally projected for Phase I were either
    reconsidered and deemed not required for the Phase II implementation,
    significantly reduced in scope, or subsumed within other projects that
    were executed as part of Implementation Period I:
        Data Conversion.--The Senate's decision to upgrade ADPICS 4.5
    procurement in the Sergeant at Arms from version 4.0 one year ahead of
    the original schedule, and also the October 1st implementation date
    reduced the requirement for data conversion. Also, the Senate made a
    policy decision not to convert prior fiscal year data. This was a key
    factor in the successful implementation by October 1, 1998.
        Implementation Management Plan and Implementation Management
    Execution.--Activities and objectives of these projects were performed
    within the FAMIS and ADPICS implementation projects.
        Phase II FAMIS and ADPICS Definition.--Definition of future phases
    for FAMIS and ADPICS was subsumed within the other FMIS project
    planning and was incorporated into Project Office and Project
    Management.
        Implementation Period I Outstanding Items.--The following projects
    were initiated or scheduled for initiation during the initial FMIS
    Implementation Period and were outstanding as of October 1, 1998.
        ACH Testing and Implementation.--The FMIS checkwriter module
    includes an option for ACH, providing the Senate a method for
    transmitting vendor payments electronically. Programming for ACH has
    been completed by KPMG and the Disbursing Office needs to complete
    acceptance testing.
        FAMIS to SOAS Interface (Completed in Implementation Period II).--
    This interface is required by SOAS for reconciliation with FAMIS. The
    design overview of this interface was completed during the initial
    phase of the project. During 1999 a reconciliation file was produced
    for SOAS reconciliation.

             IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD II (OCTOBER 1998-DECEMBER 1999)

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA21.003

    Accomplishments

        Initially, the plan for Implementation Period II was limited to
    support of reporting and rollout of ADPICS to Member and Committee
    offices. Following the initial replacement of the Senate's core
    financial systems, a pilot group of Member and Committee offices was
    selected for the ADPICS rollout. Based upon the feedback from these
    offices, it was determined that ADPICS would not be an acceptable
    solution for Member and Committee offices. After careful consideration
    of various alternatives, the Senate elected to develop and deploy Web
    FMIS which is a browser-based data entry and reporting system. As a
    result of this decision, activities that fell under the
    ``Reengineering'' category were accelerated and performed during
    Implementation Period II. During this period, other projects were
    executed that fell under the reporting category. These include Office
    Ledger Reports, Report of the Secretary and Web Reports.

    Completed Projects

        This section provides a description of the following projects that
    were executed and completed during the period defined as Implementation
    Period II: System Performance; Office Ledger Reports; Report of the
    Secretary; Web Reporting; Web FMIS; FAMIS to SOAS Interface; and Y2K
    FAMIS & ADPICS Functional Testing.

                System Performance

        Subsequent to the implementation of the upgraded FAMIS and ADPICS,
    system performance problems emerged. A FMIS performance task force
    consisting of members of the Senate Disbursing Office, Sergeant at
    Arms, and KPMG was quickly established. This task force met and
    coordinated activities on a daily basis until a sustained level of
    acceptable performance was established for the functional users. All
    areas of the system were reviewed and fine-tuned including the
    application, database, hardware, software, network, and workstations.
    After achieving an acceptable level of performance, the group continued
    to meet, as required, throughout the year to coordinate activities that
    affect end users' systems availability, monitor system performance, and
    take any further action as required.

                Office Ledger Reports

        A key financial report that is used by Senate offices is the Office
    Ledger Report. This report serves as the primary source of information
    to the offices for validation and verification of payment information.
    Initially, the Senate produced these reports using Crystal Reporting as
    a tool directly against copies of the FMIS DB2 tables. This proved to
    be an inefficient process and one that has led to inconsistencies and
    delays in report distribution. In particular, as additional
    transactions are used within FMIS, the reports must be validated to
    determine that the positive or negative values for these transactions
    are correctly interpreted and reflected in the report. The validation
    is a tedious process that requires considerable time on a monthly
    basis.
        Based upon the experiences of creating reports from direct copies
    of the FAMIS and ADPICS tables, the Senate elected to develop a
    reporting extract to serve as the source of the data required for the
    Ledger Reports. These extract programs contain the logic necessary to
    identify transaction types, perform the desired roll ups, and identify
    the correct value for number fields. The Crystal Reports were then
    revised to utilize these extracts.
        As of the date of this document, the revised reports and extracts
    are going through final development and testing is expected to be
    available shortly. The revised extracts should be able to serve as a
    platform for additional reports and queries.

                Report of the Secretary (October 1, 1998 through March 31,
                        1999 & April 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999)

        The semiannual Report of the Secretary is the primary statutory
    financial reporting requirement of the Senate. The implementation of
    FAMIS and ADPICS provided the Senate with the opportunity to revise the
    processes that have been used to compile the Report of the Secretary
    and to revise the format so that the report is more useful. Each of
    these reports has required some degree of ``new'' processing. For the
    first report, new functional and technical specifications were
    required. Programs to extract the required data from FAMIS and ADPICS
    were created as well as the Crystal Reports that perform the actual
    report production. A toolbox was also created, enabling the Disbursing
    Office to perform spell check and to make content changes to
    descriptive fields, and final post-extract corrections. For the
    production of the second semiannual volume, enhancements to the
    extracts and toolbox programs were made based upon the lessons learned
    from the first volume. In addition, new logic was required to properly
    account for balances remaining from the first half-year period. Both
    reports were printed and available to the public within the statutory
    time frame requirement.

                Web Enabled Reports

        The Senate desired to provide FMIS users with a simple and user
    friendly method for researching and reporting of relevant financial
    information. After examination of several alternatives, the web/
    internet method for delivery and distribution of reports was selected
    as the preferred method for providing these tools to Senate offices.
    The web provided a user-friendly environment that utilized leading edge
    technology consistent with the strategic vision of the Senate.
        During the early stages of the project, a technical architecture
    had to be selected that was consistent with the IT environment and
    security requirements of the Senate and would provide the basis for a
    robust development platform. Reporting extracts and a process to update
    the extracts were created to avoid potential performance problems that
    may have occurred if the reports were programmed to access the on-line
    databases. Report prototypes were created and interactively modified.
    During the final stages of the development, some changes were required
    to the structure of Web Reporting in order to integrate within Web FMIS
    and accommodate the additional data entry requirements.

                Web FMIS

        This project included the development, installation, and support of
    a Y2K compliant, Web-enabled front-end replacement to SOAS and SCEAS.
    Based upon the feedback of the initial ADPICS pilot group, it was
    determined that the mainframe system would not meet the needs, even on
    an interim basis, of the Senate office users. Due to the fact that both
    SOAS and SCEAS were non-year 2000 compliant, a replacement was
    required. A committee, consisting of members of the Disbursing Office,
    Sergeant at Arms, and office users was formulated in order to examine
    the alternatives and recommend a solution. The solution selected by the
    Senate was a web based front end that would incorporate the web
    reporting, budgeting, and data entry/maintenance as a front end to the
    Senate's existing ADPICS and FAMIS mainframe software.
        In order to reduce the risk of a timely delivery of a Y2K
    replacement for SOAS and SCEAS, some functionality was deferred to a
    future phase of the project. In addition, the functionality that was
    included in the first phase was split into three releases. The initial
    release contained basic functionality including the ability to enter
    vouchers, travel vouchers, basic budgeting, interfaced access to FAMIS
    system tables, and a suite of basic reports. The second release
    included the ability to enter travel advances, vouchers from advances,
    commitments, obligations and interfaced access to payment information.
    Release three included the option for local data storage,
    reconciliation, and the ability to create credit and adjustment
    documents.

               FAMIS to SOAS Interface

        This interface provides an electronic file of document information
    from the FMIS system to the office SOAS system. This file enables
    offices to reconcile their SOAS system with the data maintained by the
    Disbursing Office. This item was outstanding from Implementation Period
    I and completed during Implementation Period II.

                Y2K FAMIS & ADPICS Functional Testing

        James Martin Government Consulting was retained to conduct
    extensive testing and certification of FAMIS and ADPICS for Y2K. No
    issues were identified during the test, and as of the date of this
    document, no Y2K related problems with FAMIS, ADPICS, Web FMIS and
    associated hardware/software have been encountered.

                             ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT

        The Accounting Department combines the functions of the Accounting
    and Audit Sections in the former Disbursing Office configuration. The
    goal in the combination of the Sections was to combine responsibilities
    that were functionally related, such as accounts payable, in order to
    maximize efficiencies in the delivery of service to the Senate. The
    Accounting Department has several functional responsibilities
    including:

      --Maintain the Senate's financial records and statements
      --Maintain general ledger accounts and other accounting records in
            FMIS
      --Ensure adherence to appropriation limitations established by the
            Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, and Title II of the
            United States Code
      --Ensure adherence to all statues and regulations pertaining to
            payments/reimbursements
      --Perform various GL account reconciliations (suspense, clearing
            accounts)
      --Reconcile fixed assets with Sergeant at Arms fixed asset management
            module in FMIS
      --Process accounts payable for the Senate and coordinate
            disbursements
      --Provide accurate and timely reports to Senate distributed
            accounting locations
      --Establish and maintain internal controls over financial processes
      --Design and manage monthly and year-end closing processes and
            procedures
      --Prepare audited consolidated financial statements and notes in
            compliance with the latest FASAB and OMB requirements
      --Manage the annual financial statement audit with GAO or independent
            auditors.

    General Activities

        During fiscal year 1999, the Accounting Section and the new
    Accounts Payable Department processed nearly 120,000 expense
    reimbursement vouchers for payment on 50,500 United States Treasury
    checks issued. Accounting Operations processed 850 deposits for items
    ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as the
    Stationery Room, to canceled subscription refunds from Member offices.
    General ledger maintenance also prompted the entry of thousands of
    adjustment entries that include the entry of all appropriation and
    allowance funding limitation transactions, all accounting cycle closing
    entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement transactions such as payroll
    adjustments, stop payment requests, travel advance and repayments, and
    limited payability reimbursements.

    Financial Reporting Requirements--External

        Monthly financial reporting requirements to the Department of the
    Treasury include a Statement of Accountability that details all
    increases and decreases to the accountability of the Secretary of the
    Senate, such as checks issued during the month and deposits received,
    as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also reported to the
    Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis is the Statement of
    Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
    that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of every penny
    disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
    the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
    the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The
    annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used
    in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget as part of the
    submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.

    Financial Reporting Requirements--Internal

        Internally, the Accounting Department prepares and transmits ledger
    statements monthly to all Member offices and all other offices with
    payroll and non-payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail
    all of the financial activity for the appropriate accounting period
    with regards to official expenditures in detail and summary form.

                         ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AUDIT SECTION

        The Accounts Payable Audit Section of the Accounting Department is
    responsible for auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding
    voucher preparation, answering questions concerning the permissibility
    of the expense, providing advice and recommendations on the
    discretionary use of funds by distributed accounting locations,
    identifying duplicate payments vouchered by offices, monitoring
    payments related to contracts, training new Office Managers and Chief
    Clerks about Senate financial practices, training Office Managers in
    the use of the Senate's Financial Management Information System, and
    producing the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. The Section also
    maintains the Senate's central vendor file which includes the addition
    of approximately 2,000 new vendors per year to an existing vendor file
    of over 20,000 vendors added in less than 1\1/2\ years, and the
    collection of information to provide for EFT payments to them. Monitors
    the Fund Advance Tracking System (FATS) by ensuring that advances are
    charged correctly, vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and
    balances adjusted for reuse of the advance funds. An ``aging'' process
    is also performed to ensure that advances are repaid in the time
    specified by the advance regulations.

                               BUDGET DEPARTMENT

        A key component of the continued restructuring of DOFM is the
    development of a Budget Department. The primary responsibility of the
    Budget Department will be to compile the annual operating budget of the
    United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on
    Appropriations. The development of specialists in the budget area will
    allow current staff with dual responsibilities in Accounting to focus
    their efforts on general ledger activity. Other responsibilities of the
    Budget Department will be as follows:

      --Responsible for the formulation, presentation and execution of the
            budget for the Senate
      --Provide a wide range of analytical, technical and advisory
            functions related to the budget process
      --Coordinate efforts among central and distributed financial
            organizations to produce an integrated budget plan for the
            Senate
      --Prepare justification requests for requested appropriations
      --Provide expert advice to Senate officials on budgetary policy
      --Prepare necessary documentation and provides historical reference

            RESOURCE FOR THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
                          FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT

        The following functions are the responsibility of the Financial
    Systems Department:
      --Develop FMIS classification structure and perform table maintenance
      --Establish and maintain system security features
      --Provide FMIS support to system users Senate-wide and perform
            software acceptance testing of new releases
      --Develop ad hoc reports upon request
      --Automate vendor and employee payments
      --Manage and maintain the Senate's vendor file
      --Perform general ledger account creation and field structure in
            FMIS.

                         POLICY AND CONTROL DEPARTMENT

        The initial function of this department will be to work with GAO
    and an external vendor to perform an auditability assessment of the
    Senate's financial management structure. This task will identify
    information gaps in the Senate's operations that will be necessary to
    fill in order to prepare auditable financial statements. Additional
    responsibilities of the Department are as follows:

      --Develop and maintain comprehensive financial management policy and
            procedures manual to the transaction level
      --Incorporate policy changes published in the Federal Register, OMB
            Circulars, and other relevant legislation into CFM
      --Coordinate with the Financial Systems Department to incorporate
            policy changes into financial systems and incorporate FMIS
            system changes at the transaction level into the procedures
            manual
      --Serve as liaison with federal agencies such as JFMIP, GSA, and
            FASAB
      --Provide and coordinate internal and external FMIS training and
            certifying officer training.

                    DISBURSING OFFICE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATION

        The Disbursing Office also performs a broad range of internal
    support of its systems and LAN configuration as well as external
    support of legacy systems. Time allocated for system revision and
    updates was high due to preparation for Y2K compliancy and replacement
    of outdated systems. Listed below is a task list by category:

    Y2K Preparations:

        Upgraded FEDLINE PCs for Payroll ACH. Worked with the Senate
    service team to replace existing PCs and upgrade machines from DOS to
    Windows 95. Installed new encryption cards and modems.
        Upgraded ccMail database.
        Replaced Lotus Organizer scheduling agent with compliant unit.
        Replaced functionality for JNL server that provided a communication
    link to outside agencies. Required installation and setup of new
    software for access to GOALS and Cashlink programs.
        Installed Corel Word Perfect Suite on all Disbursing Office PCs.
    General:
        Participated in Disbursing Office PC configuration review and
    assessment to determine causes for slow response time.
        Replaced Disbursing Office's primary server.
        Coordinated upgrade of network connections from a Hub to a Switch
    network.
        Installed ccMail listening gateway and established a separate and
    unique mailing address for Disbursing Office Internet mail.
        Assisted Payroll to provide an automated FTP process to transfer
    payroll information from the mainframe which is used for ACH.
        Created test region of the FATS program to enable SCC support a
    test facility to correct reported problems with FATS.
        Prepared office PCs for installation of new Web FMIS application.
        Prepared PCs in the Benefits and Payroll section to access their
    new region on the mainframe.
        Upgraded 10 network printers.
        Relocated legacy 3Com network to central network storage area.
        Finalized working template for existing office laptops.

                           OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

        The Office of Human Resources implements and coordinates human
    resources policies, procedures, and programs for the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate including hiring; training; performance
    management; job analysis; compensation planning, design, and
    administration; records management; recruiting and staffing; employee
    handbooks and manuals; internal grievance procedures; employee
    relations and services; and organizational planning and development.
        The Office of the Secretary continued to build upon its performance
    management philosophy that no two individuals are alike. The primary
    emphasis was on superior performance and the major organizational
    values of teamwork, trust, respect, innovation, and continuous change.
        Several work processes were improved during 1999 to enhance
    employee productivity and service, including the Office's first salary
    structure with grades, a new certificate to pay tribute to employees
    who have faithfully served the Office and are retiring from the United
    States Senate, a new employment application to provide additional and
    better applicant data and thereby improve the quality of individuals
    selected to fill vacancies, and a new career opportunities application
    for current employees to apply for posted vacancies and obtain feedback
    on knowledge, skills, and abilities required to successfully compete
    for future opportunities. The Office also partnered with the Sergeant
    at Arms in implementing the newly acquired Lawson Insight Software
    program, which provides better and more accurate information for
    managing personnel resources.
        The Office hosted 14 interns during the summer of 1999, developing
    the knowledge and experience base of future leaders from throughout the
    nation.

                                 SENATE LIBRARY

        The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
    general reference services to the United States Senate. The
    comprehensive legislative collection consists of congressional
    documents dating from the Continental Congress. In addition, the
    Library maintains executive and judicial branch materials and an
    extensive book collection on politics, history, and biography. These
    sources plus a wide array of online systems assist the Library staff in
    providing confidential, timely, and accurate information services.

    Administration

        The third year of aggressive budget reviews delivered an additional
    $3,309.08 reduction in operating expenses. The reductions were in three
    major areas: magazine subscriptions, reference materials, and online
    services. The total reductions for the past three fiscal years total
    $18,112.43 and an estimated $12,000 in savings is expected during
    fiscal year 2000 as costs decrease for commercial online services.
    These reductions offset the ever-increasing costs for core materials.

    Russell Building

        The new Russell Office Building facility for the Senate Library
    opened its doors on February 22, 1999. The planning for the new library
    began in April 1997, when Secretary Sisco requested that the Library
    develop plans for a new facility. Russell Building demolition began in
    late December 1997 and during the next 12 months former basement
    storage rooms were transformed into a state-of-the art information
    center. Two well-planned moves took place in December 1998 and February
    1999. Over 150,000 volumes and one million microforms were transferred
    from the Capitol to the Russell Building.
        The new Senate Library offers Senate staff access to an excellent
    collection of materials and services: congressional materials dating to
    the Continental Congress; a wide array of news and legal online
    systems; over 140 periodicals and newspapers; 24,000 books on the
    Senate, American history, and political biography; a Micrographics
    Center containing one million microforms; patron access terminals; and
    a reading room with study carrels. However, the most important offering
    is the staff of the Library whose experience and expertise has served
    and will continue to serve Senate information needs.

    Information Services

        Information Services responded to 33,777 requests in 1999 and walk-
    ins were 26.3 percent of this total. This walk-in total was a
    significant rise over previous years and signals a shift in the nature
    of the inquiries. This shift to a greater percentage of walk-in patrons
    is directly attributed to the Library's convenient proximity to Senate
    offices. Other indicators of activity include 4,401 items delivered,
    5,138 faxes sent, 813 items loaned, and 160,626 photocopies produced.
    In addition, the Micrographics Center usage increased by 158 percent.
        Senate LEGIS, the legislative information system used since the
    mid-1970s, was replaced in December 1999 by LIS, the new Legislative
    Information System. To provide Senate staff with the highest quality
    support, the Library was designated as the primary LIS ``help line.''
    Formerly a Senate Computer Center responsibility, this function was
    relocated based on the online expertise and thorough understanding of
    the legislative process available from the Library.
        The Sergeant at Arms expanded the Senate-wide offerings of news and
    legal materials. Beginning January 1, 2000, the major commercial online
    information vendors, Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis, will provide online
    resources through the Sergeant at Arms program, without direct charge
    to the Library.

    Technical Services

        The Library received 15,892 new acquisitions during 1999, which was
    a 2 percent increase over the 1998 totals. This total included 4,436
    congressional publications, 11,032 depository library items, and 424
    new books. Cataloging productivity increased an impressive 53 percent
    with 10,294 records produced. Included in this total were records for
    5,564 older congressional hearings, which were part of the ongoing
    retrospective hearings project.
        The Library participated in an exciting project designed to honor
    the Capitol spaces occupied by the Library of Congress from 1800-1814.
    The project recreated a small portion of the library's original
    collection by purchasing 70 volumes identical to those destroyed by the
    British in the disastrous 1814 Capitol fire. This unique collection
    will be displayed in the Howard H. Baker Room, S-230, which was part of
    the original Library of Congress.

    Automation

        Following an intensive four-month search, the Library purchased a
    new integrated library system, replacing a system purchased in 1993.
    Provided by The Library Corporation (TLC), the new system is year 2000
    compliant, capable of processing the Library's complex 87,000
    bibliographic records, uses a Windows environment, and operates on an
    NT platform. In preparation for the TLC installation, a new NT server
    was configured and workstations were upgraded with Windows NT. On
    January 5, 2000, TLC began the installation and during the next 10 days
    provided training to Library staff. The new system is now operational
    and will greatly improve work flow, significantly increase efficiency
    and productivity, and provide Senate staff access to the online
    catalog.

               OFFICE OF THE SENATE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

        The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (``SCCE'') is
    a non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
    Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
    Act (``GERA''), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
    employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA''), Senate offices
    are now subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations
    of 11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with the legal
    representation of Senate offices in all employment law matters at both
    the administrative and court levels.
        Also, on a day-to-day basis, the office provides legal advice to
    Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws.
    Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate is an individual
    client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-client
    relationship with the SCCE.

    Background

        Each of the SCCE attorneys came to the office after having
    practiced as employment law litigators in major, national law firms
    representing Fortune 100 corporations. All services the office provides
    are the same legal services the attorneys provided to their clients
    while in private practice. The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE
    can be divided into the following categories:

      --Litigation (Defending Against Lawsuits)
      --Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits
      --Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions
      --Preventive Legal Advice
      --Union Drives, Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges
      --OSHA/ADA Compliance
      --Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law
      --Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities.
    Litigation (Defending Against Lawsuits); Mediations; Alternative

            Dispute Resolutions

        The SCCE represents each of the 180 employing offices of the Senate
    in all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts),
    hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
    labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District
    of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states. The SCCE
    represents a defendant Senate office from the inception of a case
    through U.S. Supreme Court review. The office handles all work
    internally without the assistance of outside law firms or the
    Department of Justice.
        During 1999, the SCCE defended Senate offices against 14 lawsuits
    (which required approximately 9,420 attorney work hours \1\). Two (2)
    of these matters were tried, and the SCCE won both cases. In a third
    case, the SCCE successfully moved for dismissal of the case. In a
    fourth case, the SCCE won the case at the appellate stage. The
    remaining cases are pending.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Attorney hours spent on each case include, but are not limited
    to, time for conducting the initial investigation of allegations;
    mediation with employee; negotiating settlements; reviewing employing
    office files; interviewing witnesses; investigating and responding to
    the complaint; preparing for pretrial and trial proceedings, including
    taking witness depositions, conducting extensive discovery with
    opposing counsel (propounding and responding to interrogatories,
    requests for production of documents, etc.), interviewing expert
    witnesses, preparing, researching and filing any necessary motions with
    the court, preparing witnesses for trial, preparing exhibits for trial;
    trying the case; preparing post-trial briefs; preparing appellate
    briefs; arguing before the appellate courts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The SCCE successfully represented Senate employing offices in four
    (4) unemployment compensation hearings. In no instance was the employee
    awarded compensation.
    Preventive Legal Advice
        At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is
    contemplating suing, and the office will request the SCCE's legal
    advice and/or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee's attorney
    before the employee files a lawsuit. The successful resolution of such
    matters substantially reduces an office's liability.
        Also, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff,
    Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels at
    their request. The purpose of the advice and meetings are to prevent
    litigation and to minimize liability in the event of litigation. For
    example, on a daily basis, the SCCE advises Senate offices on matters
    such as disciplining/terminating employees in compliance with the law,
    handling and investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating
    the disabled, determining wage law requirements, meeting the
    requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and management's
    rights and obligations under union laws and OSHA.
        Between January and December 1999, the SCCE has had more than 2,340
    conferences with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Office Managers, Staff
    Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels to provide legal
    advice.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The SCCE attempts to track each conference it has; however, due
    to the volume, some are not accounted for.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Union Drives, Negotiations And Unfair Labor Practice Charges

        In 1999, the SCCE handled four (4) union drives and one (1) union
    unit clarification petition.

    OSHA/ADA Compliance

        The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by
    assisting them with complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA
    regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections;
    advising State offices on the preparation of the Office of Compliance's
    Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting offices in the
    preparation of Emergency Action Plans; and advising and representing
    Senate offices when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed
    with the Office of Compliance or when a citation has been issued.

    Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law

        The SCCE provides legal advice and strategy to individual Senate
    offices regarding how to minimize legal liability in compliance with
    the law when offices reduced their forces.
        In addition, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
    Notification Act (``WARN''), offices that are closing must follow
    certain procedures for notifying their employees of the closing and for
    transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE tracks office closings
    and notifies those offices of their legal obligations under the WARN.
    In 1999, the SCCE advised six (6) Senate offices of their legal
    obligations under this law.

    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities

        In 1999, the SCCE, in conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio,
    continued to present 2-way interactive internet seminars for Members'
    offices. This process allows the SCCE to give legal seminars to
    Members' offices here in D.C. and simultaneously to broadcast them to
    state offices via the internet. The state offices access the seminars
    (by audio and video) on their PCs at no cost to the state offices. The
    state office participants are also connected by telephone cable so that
    they can fully participate in the seminars by asking questions, as
    would any member of the audience in D.C.
        The SCCE conducted 59 legal seminars during 1999. Among the topics
    covered were:

      --Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
      --The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: What Managers Need to
            Know About Their Rights and Obligations;
      --Managers' Obligations Under the Family and Medical Leave Act;
      --The Legal Pitfalls of Hiring the Right Employee: Advertising,
            Interviewing, Drug Testing and Background Checks;
      --Disciplining, Evaluating and Terminating an Employee Without
            Violating Employment Laws;
      --Management's Obligations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act;
            and
      --Equal Pay for Equal Work: Management's Obligations Under the Equal
            Pay Act.

        Finally, the SCCE continues to publish its bi-monthly newsletter
    that it distributes to all Senate offices. The newsletter is designed
    to provide Senate offices with information concerning developments in
    labor and employment laws.

    Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters

        The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices in
    preparing employee handbooks/office policies, supervisors' manuals,
    sample job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and job evaluation
    forms.
        The SCCE also reviews all regulations issued by the Office of
    Compliance and advises the Senate as to whether the regulations should
    be approved, modified, or not approved.

                    OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION

        The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
    coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
    preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
    the Senate has statutory authority. Initiatives include mass
    deacidification, phased conservation for books and documents,
    collection surveys, and contingency planning for disaster response and
    recovery.

    Work Prepared for Senate leadership

        For more than twenty years the office has bound a copy of
    Washington's Farewell Address for the annual reading. This year, a
    volume was bound for and read by Senator George V. Voinovich.
        At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the
    Office of Interparliamentary Services, marbled paper slipcases were
    fabricated for the book, The United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred
    J. Maroon, and were presented to 11 dignitaries during Senate Trips.
        At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the
    Office of Interparliamentary Services, leather labels were fabricated
    for Capitol Trays and were presented to 13 dignitaries during Senate
    Trips.
        At the request of the Senate Democratic Leadership 50 folders were
    embossed with the name of each Senator. Six hundred forty-four items
    were matted and framed, this included resolutions, photographs, and
    letters.
        The office fabricated 10 leather bound notebooks for the Senate
    Majority Leader and one for Senator Kerrey of Nebraska.
        In conjunction with the newly created Leader Lecture Series the
    office prepared several presentation pieces. Senate Majority Leader,
    Trent Lott, conceived of the series which hosts three outstanding
    former Senate Leaders and other distinguished Americans each year. Each
    guest speaker received a leather bound box for speeches, a leather
    bound notebook, and a matted and framed rare print. All were prepared
    by the Office of Conservation and Preservation. In addition, an average
    of 7 photographs representing each speakers careers were matted and
    framed for display at the reception following each historic speech.
    This years guest speakers included The Honorable George Mitchell, and
    The Honorable George Bush.

    The Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton

        The Office of Conservation and Preservation matted and framed
    thirty items and bound seven special books for the Leadership.

    Senate Library

        In 1999 conservation treatments were completed for 380 volumes of a
    7,000 volume collection. Also this year, the office prepared and sent
    366 books from the Senate Library to the Government Printing Office
    (GPO) for binding.
        In an effort to preserve valuable 19th century Senate documents,
    the Office of Conservation and Presentation, in cooperation with the
    Senate Library, rebound a complete set of the Annals of Congress, the
    Congressional Debates From 1789-1824. These volumes are very rare.
    While the Senate Library has several sets in storage, every volume is
    in need of major repair and restoration. The Office of Conservation and
    Preservation will continue in 1999 to assist the Senate Library in
    their effort to save these irreplaceable historical documents.

    Office of the Senate Curator

        The Office of Conservation and Preservation assisted the Senate
    Curator's Office with two exhibits.

    Miscellaneous Projects

        We continue to utilize our spray deacidification system,
    encapsulation, and dry mounting press. This year the office deacidified
    22 items, encapsulated 211 items, and dry mounted 30 items.
        The office continues conservation treatment of appropriation bills,
    1877-1943. This year the office completed 39 books. There are
    approximately 221 books remaining for treatment. These books are a part
    of the Appropriations Committee collection.

                           OFFICE OF SENATE SECURITY

        The Office of Senate Security (OSS) is responsible for the
    administration of classified information, personnel security,
    counterintelligence, and classified computer security programs in
    Senate offices and committees. OSS also serves as the Senate's liaison
    to the Executive Branch in matters relating to the security of
    classified information in the Senate.

    Secure Meeting Facilities

        OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 1,306 occasions
    during 1999. This is a 32 percent increase in the utilization of OSS
    facilities over 1998 levels. Six hundred eighty-five meetings,
    briefings, or hearings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms.
    Additionally, OSS provided Senators and staff secure telephones, secure
    computers, secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and
    production of classified material on 621 occasions in 1999.

    Classified Documents

        OSS received or generated 3,890 classified documents consisting of
    105,669 pages during 1999. This is a 5 percent increase in the number
    of documents received or generated in 1998. OSS completed 7,256
    document transactions and handled over 198,816 pages of classified
    material during calendar year 1999.

    Personnel Security

        OSS workload in the personnel security area increased 6 percent
    during 1999. Personnel security investigations were initiated on 147
    Senate employees. Ninety-one investigations were completed, and the
    remainder of the investigations (56) are pending completion by the
    Department of Defense or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSS also
    completed 140 routine security clearance terminations during 1999.

    Security Awareness

        OSS conducted or hosted 63 security briefings for Senate staff.
    Topics covered included: information security, counterintelligence,
    foreign travel, security managers' responsibilities, office security
    management, and introductory security briefings.

                             SENATE STATIONERY ROOM

        The Senate Stationery Room's principal functions are: (1) to sell
    stationery items for use by Senate offices and other authorized
    legislative organizations, (2) to select a variety of stationery items
    to meet the needs of the Senate environment on a day-to-day basis and
    maintain a sufficient inventory of these items, (3) to purchase
    supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive bid and/or GSA
    Federal Supply Schedules, (4) to maintain individual official
    stationery expense accounts for Senators, Committees, and Officers of
    the Senate, (5) to render monthly expense statements, (6) to insure
    receipt of all reimbursements for all purchases by the client base via
    direct payments or through the certification process, (7) to make
    payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services in a timely
    manner and certify receipt of all supplies and services, and (8) to
    provide the deliver of all purchased supplies to the requesting
    offices.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                   1999            1998
                                                Statistical     Statistical
                                                Operations      Operations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross Sales.............................   $3,404,673.00   $3,000,341.00
    Sales Transactions......................          73,259          89,897
    Purchase Orders Issues..................           6,813           6,073
    Vouchers Processed......................           7,932           7,481
    Metro Fare Media Sold...................          13,941           6,709
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The reporting categories for statistical operations of the
    Stationery Room for fiscal year 1999 reflected increases in the
    following categories:

      --Vouchers processed for vendor payments were up by 451
      --Purchase Orders issued for supplies increased by 740
      --Metro Fare Media sold increased by 7,232.

        The total cost to the Senate for the Mass Transportation Subsidy
    Program media was $275,260. As reported in last year's annual Report,
    it was anticipated that participation by Senate staff in the Mass
    Transportation Subsidy Program would increase with the ceiling cap
    being increased from $21 to $40, by the Committee on Rules and
    Administration, effective October 1, 1998. Participation in this
    program more than doubled in fiscal year 1999.
        Actual sales transactions decreased by 16,538 during fiscal year
    1999. This was directly attributable to new methodology being
    implemented to accommodate flag purchase transaction requirements. This
    new methodology provided a more efficient and expeditious process for
    purchasing flags by Senate offices.
        The renovation of the Stationery Room was completed during the 2nd
    quarter of fiscal year 1999. This project was the culmination of many
    months of planning and coordination with the Office of the
    Superintendent, the Office of Customer Relations, the Committee on
    Rules and Administration and with the encouragement and support of the
    Office of the Secretary. New and additional shelving was installed, as
    well as modular furniture and cabinetry, which has provided a more
    efficient work environment for the associated applications of the
    Stationery Room. New carpeting, electrical re-configuration, painting
    and cabling were also accomplished during this project.
        During fiscal year 1999, the Stationery Room's Y2K implementation
    strategy was phased in during the first three quarters in accordance
    with the Technology Assessment Proposal. Roll-out of new hardware,
    which included workstations and printers, was accomplished for the
    Stationery Room and the Senate Gift Shop during the second quarter,
    followed by the Stationery Room's migration from its Legacy system on
    May 1, and the Gift Shop on June 15, to Microsoft Cluster Technology to
    accomplish a totally redundant system utilizing Compaq 6000 and 6500
    servers. Both servers and client workstations are operating in a
    Microsoft NT 4.0 network environment.
        Special recognition should be given to the Secretary of the
    Senate's own Computer staff for their assistance, professional
    knowledge and advice regarding the Y2K planning strategies of the
    Stationery Room. This project could not have been accomplished without
    the additional support, encouragement, knowledge and professional
    advice rendered by the Sergeant at Arms' Office of Customer Relations
    and the Office Operations Division and their Technical Review Staffs.
        The projects of fiscal year 1999 for the Stationery Room were
    implemented in a successful manner with no disruption of services to
    it's client base.

    Personnel

        The Senate Stationery Room announces the retirement of Steven G.
    Bale, Keeper of the Stationery, on December 31, 1999, and the promotion
    of Michael J. McGhee to that position.

                          INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

        The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) is responsible for
    administrative, financial, and protocol functions for all
    interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate participates by
    statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
    participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations authorized
    by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also provides
    appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate delegations.
        The statutory interparliamentary conferences are:

      --North Atlantic Assembly (NATO Parliamentary Assembly)
      --Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group
      --Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group
      --British-American Parliamentary Group.

        In June, the 38th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group was held in Savannah, Georgia. Arrangements
    for this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
        As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
    Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation
    trips, IPS provided assistance to 11 individual foreign trips. Several
    other trips were scheduled, but were canceled or postponed after most
    of the advance work had been completed. Also, Senators and staff
    authorized by committees for foreign travel continue to call upon this
    office for assistance with passports, visas, travel arrangements, and
    reporting requirements.
        IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
    reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
    addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
    the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
    assist staff members of Senators and committees in filling out the
    required reports.
        Known by many in the Senate as the ``protocol office'',
    Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office
    of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign embassy
    officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in this
    office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups by
    the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other offices
    of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in arranging
    programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is frequently consulted
    by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol questions.
    Occasional questions come from state officials or the general public
    regarding Congressional protocol.
        On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
    Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
    and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
    behalf of foreign visitors under authority of Public Law 100-71 are
    maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
        Planning is underway for the 41st Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group to be held in the United States in 2000.
    Advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the
    40th Annual Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting, to be held in
    the United States in 2001. Preparations are also underway for the
    spring and fall sessions of the North Atlantic Assembly (NATO
    Parliamentary Assembly).

                                SENATE GIFT SHOP

        The Senate Gift Shop provides services to Senators, spouses, Senate
    Staff, visiting constituents and U.S. Capitol visitors. Products
    include a wide variety of souvenir items and fine gifts. Services
    provided include the distribution of educational materials and sale of
    special order products, custom framing, engraving, and shipping.
        The Y2K compliance up-grades of hardware and software in the Gift
    Shop were successfully completed. The new cash registers were installed
    in all retail and special order locations and new PCs were installed in
    the Administrative, Special Order, Warehouse, Shipping and Engraving
    locations. There have been no negative ramifications realized as a
    result of the calender year change or the computer upgrades. We do
    expect to have ongoing activities associated with programming and
    software modifications.
        The Holiday Ornament series ``The Early Years of Congress'' has
    proven to be a most successful program. The 1999 ornament depicts the
    building ``Congress Hall'' in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which served
    as the second meeting place of Congress. A total of more than 25,000
    ornaments have been sold since it was first offered for purchase in
    September of 1999.
        The Tiffany Millennium and Congressional Plates have been well
    received by customers. The 106th Congressional Plate was produced in a
    shell design using motifs from the panels of the Brumidi Corridors.
    Sales of this item have exceeded 300 units since introduced in July of
    1999. The Congressional Millennium Plate collection is a three year
    series that was introduced for sale this past August with the release
    of the 1999 plate. The 2000 plate followed in October, just in time for
    the holiday sales rush, and the 2001 plate of the same series will be
    made available this year. The select designs used to decorate these
    plates were taken from art work in the 1850s extensions of the Capitol
    Building. The same design was used for each plate, but the base colors
    of the plates were changed from year to year. The 1999 plate is
    burgundy, the 2000 plate is gold and the 2001 plate blue.

                            OFFICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

        The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
    records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
    Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
    Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
    filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
    Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
    Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.

    Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended

        The Act required 1999 Senate candidates to file semi-annual
    reports. Filings totaled 3,181 documents containing 84,421 pages.

    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

        As of September 30, 1999, 4,813 registrants represented 13,793
    clients and employed 21,279 individuals who met the statutory
    definition of ``lobbyist.'' 30,886 lobbying registrations and reports
    were received and made available to the public.

    Public Financial Disclosure

        The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 17,
    1998. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday,
    June 11th. A total of 2,466 reports and amendments were filed
    containing 12,513 pages. There were 277 requests to review or receive
    copies of the documents.

    Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)

        The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,600 reports
    during fiscal year 1999.

    Registration of Mass Mailing

        Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
    The number of pages were 780.

    Public Inquiries

        From October, 1998, through September, 1999, the Public Records
    office staff assisted more than 3,000 individuals seeking information
    from reports filed with the office. This figure does not include
    telephone assistance. A total of 114,835 photocopies and 175 rolls of
    microfilm were sold in the period.

    Automation Activities

        During fiscal year 1999, the Public Records office accomplished the
    following goals: (1) all computerized systems were Y2K compliant; (2) a
    new campaign finance system based upon optical imaging technology
    replaced a mainframe system in existence since 1983; (3) initiation of
    a web page on Webster for the public records office offering the
    Compilation of Reports and Statements to be Filed by Senators, Officers
    and Employees of the United States Senate and Other Individuals
    including the ability to download all the forms needed to be filed; and
    (4) an addition on the Senate Web server that allows registrants and
    researchers to obtain the Senate identification number for Lobbying
    Disclosure Act registrants and clients. (This serves another purpose
    for the public, which is to see the list of registrants and clients
    under the Act.) In addition to accomplishment of these goals, the
    office submitted a TAP to the Rules Committee and received approval to
    allow transmission of electronic images of campaign finance reports to
    the FEC, replacing microfilm and photocopies. At the same time, the
    office moved forward in fulfilling its statutory requirement under the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 for electronic filing and public access
    by seeking outside programming assistance for the web part of the
    system.

                               HISTORICAL OFFICE

        Serving as the institutional memory of the Senate, the Historical
    Office collects and provides information on important events,
    precedents, dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current
    and past Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media,
    scholars, and the general public. The Office advises senators,
    officers, and committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-
    current office files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-
    related source materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical,
    bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on the more
    than 1,700 former senators. It edits for publication historically
    significant transcripts and minutes of selected Senate committees and
    party organizations, and conducts oral history interviews with retired
    senior Senate staff.

    Editorial Projects

        Minutes of the Republican and Democratic Party Conferences, 1903-
    1964.--In 1992 the Senate leaders agreed to a recommendation of the
    Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress that the Historical
    Office preserve, edit, and publish the official minutes of each party
    conference, dating from the start of the twentieth century through
    1964. The Office completed this project in 1999 with publication of
    Minutes of the U.S. Senate Democratic Conference, 1903-1964 (694 pages)
    and Minutes of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference, 1911-1964 (1,029
    pages).
        Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.--Since the
    most recent printed edition of the Biographical Directory of the United
    States Congress appeared in 1989, the Historical Office has added
    dozens of new biographical sketches and revised more than half of the
    database's 1,852 Senate entries. A current version of the database is
    now available online at http://bioguide.congress.gov. Work is also
    proceeding on the next print edition, planned for publication in 2001.
        Office Building Brochures.--The Office created brochures for public
    distribution explaining the history and functions of each of the
    Senate's three office buildings.
        Leader's Lecture Series.--The Office prepared a fifty-page
    illustrated booklet containing the 1998 Leader's Lectures of Senators
    Mike Mansfield, Howard Baker, and Robert C. Byrd. It also provided
    research and administrative support for the 1999 lectures of former
    President George Bush and former Majority Leader George Mitchell.
        Administrative History of the Senate.--During 1999, the Office
    completed much of the basic research and preliminary organization for
    this historical account of the Senate's administrative development
    since 1789.
        Documentary History of Senate Impeachment Trials.--This publication
    will present a documentary case-study look at each of the seventeen
    impeachment trials, focusing on the development of Senate impeachment
    procedures. Working drafts have been prepared for each case, with
    selection of key documents still to be done. Completion is expected in
    2001.

    Oral History Program

        The Historical Office opened for scholarly research the transcripts
    of oral history interviews with Gregory S. Casey, former Sergeant at
    Arms, and Christine S. McCreary, former staff aide to Senators Stuart
    Symington and John Glenn. Historians conducted interviews with key
    staff involved in the planning and management of the Clinton
    impeachment trial.

    Member Services

        ``Senate Historical Minutes''.--At the request of the Senate
    Democratic Leader, the historian prepared and delivered a ``Senate
    Historical Minute'' at each of thirty Senate Democratic Conference
    weekly meetings during the first session of the 106th Congress. These
    300-word Minutes are designed to enlighten members about significant
    events and personalities associated with the Senate's institutional
    development. The more than one hundred prepared since 1997 are
    available as a feature on the Senate home page.
        Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The Historical
    Office assisted various committees and members' offices with planning
    for the preservation of their permanently valuable records. Briefings
    included guidance on archiving information from computer systems,
    assistance with transferring committee records to the National Archives
    and members' records to a home state repository, and identification of
    which information is appropriate for historical preservation.
        Impeachment trial research.--The Office provided historical
    information related to previous impeachment trials to the Senate
    leadership, officers, and individual members, as well as to the press
    and general public.

    Photographic Collections

        The Office continued to expand its 35,000-item photograph
    collection by creating a photographic record of historically
    significant Senate events and by actively seeking photographs of former
    Senators. The photo historian began cataloging that collection by
    entering information into an image database. That staff member
    converted 9,000 photographs into digitized images, a process that will
    help preserve frequently used photographs by storing them in an easily
    accessible format. Photographs can now be viewed in electronic format
    and transmitted via e-mail.

                          OFFICE OF THE SENATE CURATOR

        The Office of Senate Curator, under the direction of the Senate
    Commission on Art, administers the museum programs of the Senate for
    the Capitol and Senate office buildings. The Curator and staff suggest
    acquisitions, provide appropriate exhibits, engage in research, and
    write and edit publications. In addition, the office studies,
    identifies, arranges, protects, preserves, and records the historical
    collections of the Senate, including paintings, sculpture, and
    furnishings, and exercises supervisory responsibility for those
    chambers in the Capitol and the jurisdiction of the Senate Commission
    on Art. All records of research and documentation related to these
    areas of responsibility are available for use by Member's offices, the
    media, scholars and the public. With the establishment of the United
    States Capitol Preservation Commission, the Senate Commission on Art
    has become the designated recipient of objects with Senate association
    received by the Preservation Commission, and is tasked to ``provide to
    the Capitol Preservation Commission such staff support and assistance
    as the Preservation Commission may request.''

    Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management

        In October the Senate Commission on Art approved the commissioning
    of several significant portraits for the Senate collection. The Senate
    Leadership Portrait Collection was established to honor duly elected
    Presidents pro tempore and Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S.
    Senate. The Commission further agreed to proceed with commissioning two
    portraits of former Republican and Democratic Leaders of the Senate,
    based on the recommendations of the Majority and Minority Leaders. A
    portrait of Senator James Eastland will also be added as part of this
    series. Eastland was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for over 22
    years--the longest continuous service of any Senate committee chair--
    and was President pro tempore from 1972 to 1978. Additionally,
    portraits of Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Blanche Kelso Bruce were
    authorized as part of an effort to enhance the Senate collection with
    portraits of significant women and minorities who served the Senate
    with distinction. Smith was the first woman to win election to both
    houses of Congress, and the first woman elected to a leadership post in
    the Senate as chair of the Republican Conference; Bruce was the first
    African American to serve a full term in the United States Senate, as
    well as the first African American to preside over the Senate. The
    Office of Senate Curator has developed a list of prospective artists,
    and an advisory panel of professionals in the field is scheduled to
    review the candidates and provide recommendations. The Senate
    Commission on Art will then select the final artists to execute the
    portraits.
        At the request of the Senate Commission on Art, the Senate passed a
    resolution directing the Commission to recommend past Senators whose
    paintings will be placed in two of the remaining unfilled spaces in the
    Senate Reception Room. The legislation notes that outstanding Senators
    will be selected who are deceased and have not served in the Senate for
    the last 21 years. Following Senate approval of the final two
    candidates, the Commission will begin the process of selecting
    appropriate artists.
        In addition to these commissioned portraits, a number of
    significant works were acquired for the Senate collection in 1999.
    These included 17 prints for the Senate's collection of historical
    engravings and political cartoons. Among the most important works
    purchased were an 1844 lithograph of Henry Clay after a John Nagle
    painting, and a rare 1848 print of the Capitol. The Senate study
    collection of 19th and early 20th century images of the Senate and
    Capitol comprises over 1,246 prints; it is one of the most extensive
    collections on the subject in the country. In addition, the Senate
    acquired an 1890 gouache (watercolor) of the Senate Chamber by T. Dart
    Walker, which was later used as a cover illustration for the December
    23, 1899 issue of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly; an original
    Supreme Court Justice desk built by James Green in 1836; an 1844
    Capitol autograph album with 270 signatures, including members of
    Congress and other political notables; 23 admittance tickets printed
    for the 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson; and a 19th century
    breakfront for the Senate Chamber lobby. A significant number of
    objects were preserved and catalogued from the impeachment trial of
    William Jefferson Clinton. Recognizing that the Senate had not saved
    any objects from the Johnson impeachment trial, the Office of the
    Curator initiated a comprehensive effort to ensure that appropriate
    objects were collected and preserved from the Clinton trial. The office
    also assisted in the creation of various mementos for impeachment
    participants.
        Nine new reproduction prints were acquired for the collection. The
    Curator staff is responsible for loaning and monitoring 450 prints in
    the reproduction collection. Currently 356 reproduction prints are on
    exhibit in various offices and rooms in the Senate wing of the Capitol
    and Senate office buildings. The Office of the Curator received and
    catalogued five significant gifts accepted by senators from various
    foreign governments. The foreign gift disposition policy initiated by
    the Curator in 1998, as approved by the Committee on Rules and
    Administration and the Select Committee on Ethics, was continued in
    1999. Thirteen gifts were permanently transferred to various
    repositories; the Curator staff organized and assisted in the packing
    and shipping of these items. One additional foreign gift was purchased
    by a senator through the General Services Administration procedure.
        In the area of automation, electronic information for the foreign
    gift and reproduction art databases was successfully migrated from
    SNAP! to FileMaker Pro as part of a larger project to convert all
    collection databases to this software program. In FileMaker Pro, a
    catalog worksheet and object summary report was created for the foreign
    gift database and a columnar location report was created for the
    reproduction art database. Efforts were begun to integrate this
    electronic information with images of collection objects. Color
    transparencies of objects were professionally scanned at a high
    resolution for preservation and study purposes, and at a low resolution
    for inclusion in the collections management database and web site.
        For the second consecutive year an extensive annual inventory of
    the permanent, foreign gift, and reproduction art collections were
    completed using a computer generated master list of all collection
    objects. Staff members were able to expand on information gathered and
    entered into the database in 1998. Detailed information such as past
    locations, current locations, current condition, and current contact
    information was accurately recorded, and the inventory results
    summarized in a formal report.
        The office worked with the Capitol Maintenance Division and the
    Engineer's Office of the Architect of the Capitol to draft renovation
    proposals to improve two archival storage areas. When completed, both
    rooms will be self-contained units that meet museum standards, thus
    assuring that the Senate collections stored in these rooms are
    preserved and protected from harmful agents of deterioration.
        The office also worked with legal counsel for the Secretary to
    resolve major issues regarding insurance of objects in the collection,
    specifically with regards to incoming and outgoing loans, shipping
    arrangements, and potential damage to objects during a major disaster.
        Work continued on the comprehensive disaster preparedness,
    response, and recovery plan for the Senate's historic collections. The
    Capitol Hill Disaster Assistance Group (CHDAG) continued drafting
    sections of a mutual aid agreement, including a new memorandum of
    understanding which recognizes a critical need for a disaster recovery
    space. A table top exercise was held with CHDAG members and various
    Capitol offices to simulate a disaster occurring at the Capitol and to
    discuss joint initiatives for responding to and recovering from the
    disaster. The office also continued with preparations for the creation
    of a Senate art emergency plan. This included accessing the
    computerized architectural maps of the Architect of the Capitol over
    the network in order to create art location maps; duplicating all color
    transparencies of collection objects for off-site cold storage at
    Archives II of the National Archives; and creating three React Paks,
    containers of materials needed to respond to an emergency within the
    first 20 minutes.

    Conservation and Restoration

        The conservation of several significant works of art was completed.
    These included the sculpture of Justice and History in the Capitol
    terminus of the Senate subway, the recently acquired gouache by Walker
    of the Senate Chamber, several of the Lily Spandorf drawings, and
    historic furniture from the Senate Library third floor Capitol project.
    Three historic overmantel frames for mirrors were also regilded. In
    addition, the staff worked with the Senate Superintendent's Office to
    install three plaster relief panels in the subway area. These panels
    were the models used by Lee Lawrie to create the marble reliefs located
    in the Senate Chamber; the Curator's staff discovered one of these
    reliefs in storage in the Capitol Mason Shop. The reliefs are scheduled
    for conservation in February 2000.
        The office continued with the Senate Chamber desk restoration
    program begun in 1997, and ten additional desks received conservation
    treatment. To date, 20 desks, including the Jefferson Davis and Daniel
    Webster desks, have been professionally restored. The treatment process
    addresses the wear and degradation of these historic desks due to
    continued heavy use. The project also involves extensive documentation
    of the condition, construction details, wood type, measurements, and
    restoration of each desk. Following conservation, a final report
    detailing treatment was submitted to those Senators whose desks were
    conserved. In order to preserve the desks, various initiatives were
    undertaken, including installation of heavy-gauge mylar sheeting in the
    desk drawers to protect the historic names carved inside; fabrication
    and installation of rubber bumpers at the ends of each chair arm to
    eliminate damage to the desk fronts; and application of metal toe caps
    over the existing desk feet to preserve the original carved wood from
    continued abrasion.
        Following an extensive furniture survey conducted in 1997 by
    conservator Robert Mussey Associates, a comprehensive restoration
    program has been implemented for the historic furnishings in the Old
    Supreme Court Chamber. While this chamber was restored in 1975,
    conservation of the historic furnishings was inadequate at that time,
    and in some cases has been found to have been incorrect. Among the
    items restored were ten Old Supreme Court Justices desks. The
    conservation treatment for these desks included uncovering and
    restoring the original finish layers and replacing the writing tops
    with appropriate green wool broadcloth. In addition, the historic
    Willard Clock was restored; a significant amount of bronze powder
    overpaint was removed from the wooden clock case, revealing an original
    layer of gold leaf gilding. Further research is currently being
    conducted on the various historic furnishings in the room to ensure a
    more accurate and authentic recreation of the chamber.

    Historic Chambers

        The Curator staff continued to maintain the Old Senate and Old
    Supreme Court Chambers, and coordinated periodic use of both rooms for
    special occasions. Thirty-three requests were approved for use of the
    Old Senate Chamber, and thirty were approved for the Old Supreme Court
    Chamber. Several significant events were held in the Old Senate,
    including a closed meeting of the Senate to discuss the Clinton
    impeachment trial, the re-enactment ceremony for members of the 106th
    Congress, and a similar re-enactment for Senator Lincoln Chafee; and
    two evening lectures as part of the Leader's Lecture Series, which
    presents outstanding former Senate leaders sharing their insights about
    the Senate as an institution. Along with general care and maintenance
    of the rooms, new carpeting was installed in the public area of the Old
    Senate Chamber and a remote-controlled lighting system was installed in
    the Old Court.

    Loans To and From the Collection

        Of major significance was the return of the historic Senate bill
    hopper to its original location in the Old Senate Chamber. The bill
    hopper was used in the Senate during the early 19th century to store
    and track bills; it is believed that as a bill advanced through the
    legislative process it moved up the shelves of the hopper. A long-term
    loan of the bill hopper has been arranged with the Smithsonian
    Institution. A total of 72 loans of historic objects and paintings are
    currently maintained by the office, an increase of 38 percent from last
    year. The Curator staff returned four expired loans to various museums
    and institutions, while eight new objects were borrowed in 1999 for
    display in the Capitol Building. Two political cartoons in the Senate
    collection were loaned to the Brandywine River Museum in Pennsylvania
    for their exhibition titled The Political Pen of Thomas Nast.

    Exhibitions and Publications

        The office continued its ambitious publications program, producing
    five new brochures and reprinting several popular ones. The new design
    format established last year for these publications continues to be
    highly successful; the consistent look for Senate educational
    publications ensures that they are readily identified by visitors, and
    helps lay the foundation for the Senate's public education effort as
    plans proceed for the Capitol Visitor Center. New publications in 1999
    included: The United States Senate: 106th Congress; The Vice
    President's Room; A Pictorial Guide to Senate Floor Staff; The Old
    Senate Chamber: 1810-1859; and The Old Supreme Court Chamber: 1810-
    1860. The Foreign Relations Committee Room and The Lyndon Baines
    Johnson Room are currently in production and scheduled for release in
    February 2000.
        The long awaited publication United States Senate Fine Art
    Collection has progressed considerably and is in its final stages.
    Along with the writing and editing of this catalogue, related projects
    included completing the professional photographing of both the
    collection and a number of room views, and developing a comprehensive
    bibliography. It is anticipated that the volume will be available in
    the fall of 2000.
        In July a new exhibition titled Advise & Consent: Drawings by Lily
    Spandorf opened in the first floor connecting corridor of the Senate
    wing. The exhibit showcases more than 25 drawings by artist Lily
    Spandorf, made during the Washington filming of the 1962 movie ``Advise
    & Consent''. These original illustrations depict the Senate, the
    Capitol, and other Washington landmarks during the filming of this
    classic political thriller. The exhibit draws from 80 pen-and-ink
    sketches and two watercolors the Senate recently acquired from the
    artist. An interactive computer exhibit comparing Ms. Spandorf's
    drawings with the film is scheduled for installation in early 2000.

    Policies and Procedures

        With assistance from legal counsel for the Secretary, the
    photographic reproduction request policy and procedures were revised
    substantially. During 1999, over 50 requests to reproduce photographic
    images in the Senate collection were approved and processed.
    Approximately 11 requests were denied because they did not fit within
    the scope of the photographic reproduction policy. In addition, the
    office established new guidelines and procedures for filming,
    videotaping, and photographing in the Old Senate and Old Supreme Court
    Chambers. Those requesting permission to record the chambers for
    educational or newsworthy purposes are now required to sign a contract
    stipulating their adherence to the new guidelines; the procedures will
    significantly improve the security and maintenance of these rooms.
    Guidelines for visiting researches were also established in an effort
    to more efficiently serve the needs of scholars and students utilizing
    the office's reference materials.

    Collaborations, Educational Programs, And Events

        As part of the seminar series conducted under the auspices of the
    Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms, the staff of the
    Curator's Office continued to deliver periodic addresses on various
    aspects of the Senate's art and history. Staff conducted or assisted
    with several sessions, including ``Behind the Scenes at the Capitol,''
    a tour of some of the lesser known rooms and spaces in the building,
    and ``Congress & the Capitol: Tour Guide Series.''
        The curatorial staff worked closely with the Senate Gift Shop in
    developing a number of mementos based on the art and architecture of
    the Capitol. Most notably, the office assisted in the design of the
    1999 Congressional Holiday Ornament. Romance cards which provide
    important historical and educational information were produced for this
    project, as well as others.
        The official Senate chinaware was inventoried and used at over 20
    receptions for distinguished guests, both foreign and national.
    Automation
        In addition to consolidating and refining its presence on the
    newly-launched Senate web site, the Office of Senate Curator worked
    with the Government Printing Office to design an interactive web-based
    exhibit. Using already existing elements of the Senate Art in Stamps
    web site (previously posted as static pages in 1998), the Typography
    and Design section of GPO created a colorful, active exhibit that
    better utilizes the resources of the internet. Several similar efforts
    are planned for 2000.

    Objectives for 2000

        Conservation concerns continue to be a priority. Restoration
    projects in 2000 will include the Senate Chamber desks (with an
    additional 15 desks to be restored), various original lawyer's tables
    and roll top desks from the Old Supreme Court Chamber, the plaster
    sculpture of Justice, several historic mirrors, two paintings with
    frames, the three Lee Lawrie plaster reliefs, and the Senate snuff
    boxes. Paint analysis of various locations in the Capitol will also
    begin in an effort to more accurately represent the original historic
    colors of the building, along with continued conservation of the
    Brumidi Corridor frescos.
        A new exhibition highlighting 200 years of presidential
    inaugurations at the Capitol will be installed in the first floor
    connecting corridor of the Senate wing in November. Additionally, the
    new display area in the vacant stairwells of the Brumidi Corridors will
    finally be completed.
        Work will continue on the comprehensive disaster preparedness,
    response, and recovery plan for the Senate's historic collections.
        Additional signage will be developed for various locations in the
    Senate. These signs utilize the design elements of the Secretary's
    educational publications and provide visitors with a brief history of
    various rooms and works of art. Signs planned for 2000 include the Old
    Supreme Court Chamber, the Senate Appropriations Committee Room, the
    Senate Chamber Gallery, Justice and History, and the Lee Lawrie reliefs
    in the Senate subway area.
        The Senate Art web site is also slated for several major
    improvements in 2000. New exhibits highlighting various conservation
    programs, specifically the Senate Chamber desks and Brumidi Corridors.
    Visitors will learn the history of these historic desks and corridors,
    the proposed conservation treatment, and the science of conservation in
    general, and will be updated on the progress of current efforts.
        The Curator staff will assist the Senate Commission on Art in
    developing a comprehensive preservation policy for the Senate. Although
    the Senate's historic architecture and its art is universally
    recognized as uniquely significant, no preservation plan has ever been
    designed to protect its integrity or to prevent its gradual--or
    inadvertent--degradation. Increasingly, heavy use of the Senate wing of
    the Capitol presents special challenges in adapting the aged building
    to new needs and in restoring and retaining its historic character and
    authenticity. The principles defined in the preservation policy will
    serve as a general guide for the restoration and preservation of the
    Senate wing, and will promote preservation-sensitive planning.

                               SENATE PAGE SCHOOL

        The United States Senate Page School provides a smooth transition
    from and to the students' home schools, providing those students with
    as sound a program, both academically and experientially, as possible
    during their stay in the nation's capital, within the limits of the
    constraints imposed by the work situation.

    Summary of Accomplishments

        School is conducted between the hours of 6:15 A.M.-9:45 A.M. unless
    the Senate convenes early. When this occurs, the school day is
    abbreviated. School was in session on five Saturdays which were used to
    give the PSAT and take educational field trips to extend the learning
    experience.
        Purchases for use in the school included an HP Scanjet Scanner, a
    tripod screen, and TI 89 calculators for math classes. Math and U.S.
    History software was purchased. The text, Intermediate Algebra--A
    Graphing Approach was purchased for use in the algebra II class. Grapes
    of Wrath, Catcher & the Rye, and Vocabulary Builders were purchased for
    use in the English classes.
        PSAT review was presented to all students this fall by staff and
    the PSAT was administered on the national testing date. Instruction in
    five foreign languages was provided by tutors. Staff attended a number
    of development activities including computer classes, Advanced
    Placement training, and subject matter specific seminars.
        Bulletin boards and fireproof file cabinets were installed in the
    library. The computers formerly located in the math classroom have been
    relocated to the library to allow more access by pages. Classes which
    need to use the computers now meet in the library for those
    assignments.

    Summary of Plans

        Closing ceremony will be conducted on January 21, 2000. Orientation
    and course scheduling for the second semester pages will be conducted
    on Monday, January 24, 2000.
        Needs of the incoming students will be immediately assessed and a
    schedule will be devised to meet their needs. Tutors for foreign
    languages will be obtained and field trips will be planned as time
    allows.
        The recommendation of the Middle States Association of Colleges and
    Schools to strengthen the program by training all teachers in Advanced
    Placement curriculum in their disciplines should be completed within
    the next year for new staff.
        Staff development opportunities for 2000 include the option of
    additional computer training for all staff, Advanced Placement
    workshops for two staff members, and subject matter conferences
    conducted by the national organizations supporting the various academic
    disciplines will be investigated as well. A review will be conducted in
    all subjects to determine which, if any, textbooks need to be replaced.
    Software will be reviewed and new requests will be investigated.

                              INFORMATION SYSTEMS

       The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
    technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
    the application and network development groups within the SAA, the
    Government Printing Office (GPO), and outside vendors on technical
    issues and joint projects. The department provides computer related
    support for the all LAN-based servers in the Office of the Secretary of
    the Senate.
        Additionally, staff provide direct application support for all
    software installed workstations and interact with next generation
    hardware and software implementations.

    Mission Evaluation

        The primary mission of the Information Systems Department is to
    continue to provide a high level of customer satisfaction and computer
    support for all departments with the Secretary of the Senate. Emphasis
    is placed on the creation and transfer of legislation to outside
    departments and agencies.

    Staffing Changes

        There were no direct or indirect additions to the staffing levels
    in fiscal year 1999. Although staffing levels remained unchanged,
    improved techniques were developed to extent the levels of technical
    help to Secretary staff. These measures include the ability to diagnose
    and remotely repair LAN workstations, on-line web-base application
    training and the continuing effort to evaluate new technologies in the
    workplace.
        Several Departments, namely Disbursing, Office of Public Records,
    Chief Counsel for Employment, Page School, Senate Library, Senate
    Security and Stationery/Gift Shop have dedicated systems administrators
    and NT servers installed. In most cases the separate systems hold
    unique applications, and isolated LANs were set up for security
    reasons. Information Systems continues to provide hardware and software
    support for these department as required and assist in project
    upgrades.

    Improvements to the Secretary's LANs

        The Senate had chosen Windows NT as the standard network operating
    system in 1997. The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing
    hardware and software support within the Information Systems
    Department, and augment support from the Sergeant at Arms whenever
    required. The below chart notes the installation of seven different
    servers. The Secretary's Network encompasses approximately 400 users in
    the Capitol, the Senate Hart and Dirksen Buildings and the Page School.
    The LAN operating system is 97 percent Microsoft based and 3 percent
    Novell based server software.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           NT/     Novell
                              Department                             NT/PDC    NT/BDC    Single      4.x     Totals
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information Systems...........................................         1         1         3         1         6
    Disbursing....................................................         1         1         1  ........         3
    Library.......................................................         1  ........         1  ........         2
    Printing and Document Services................................  ........  ........         1  ........         1
    Official Reporters............................................  ........  ........  ........         1         1
    Chief Counsel.................................................         1         1  ........  ........         2
    Page School...................................................         1  ........  ........  ........         1
    Stationery....................................................         1         1  ........  ........         2
    Senate Security...............................................         1  ........  ........  ........         1
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Totals..................................................         7         4         6         2        19
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NT/PDC--Primary Domain Controllers; Dark Cells--Systems Changes in 1999; NT/BDC--Backup Domain Controllers.

        The above chart indicates several additional servers installed this
    past year, namely
      --Installed and added fault tolerant domain server in Disbursing
      --Installed and added Oracle/Web server in Senate Library
      --Dedicated CC:MAIL Server for Secretary office
      --Retired Stationery/Gift Shop Novell Server
      --Retired Senate Library Novell Server.
        These installations were vital to the completion of the Y2K
    compliance project for the Secretary's office. The Disbursing office
    server required a higher degree of built-in fault tolerance to achieve
    zero-down time for all Disbursing transactions. The Senate Library
    project Oracle server finalized a year long replacement search for the
    older Marc (machine readable cataloging) databases.
        The non-compliant Stationery/Gift Shop mainframe was replaced with
    a clustered-array, fault tolerant system to accommodate all business
    functions.

    Legislative Information System/Document Management System (LIS/DMS)

        Support staff of the Secretary and Sergeant at Arms continue to
    work together to support the current LIS/DMS system. Beginning in June
    1999, eight major releases of KPMG authored LIS client software were
    introduced and tested on all legislative clerk workstations.
    Installation and testing continued until the final software release in
    January 2000. During this testing period, the existing hardware
    workstations required replacement. Although all hardware had been
    deemed compliant, the new LIS client software required additional
    Windows resources to coexist with previous installed applications. All
    legislative clerk hardware workstations were replaced with high
    performance Compaq Pentium III units and tested for LIS functionality
    in 1999. In conjunction with SAA Networking operations, an extensive
    analysis of LIS network performance was completed in November. LIS
    report generation was monitored and no appreciable network congestion
    was noted. To improve overall network performance, older Cabletron HUBs
    were replaced with more efficient Cisco intelligent switches in all
    departments in the Capitol.

    Captioning Services (ST-54)

        The Official Reporters and Captioning department share a common
    Novell server. They use specialized software called Computer Aided
    Transcription (CAT) for translating their stenography code into
    English. In 1998, all hardware and software was tested for Y2K
    compliancy. Ongoing evaluation of next generation software is
    continuing as a replacement for the older Xscribe software application.
    In 2000, applications will be consolidated to achieve improved
    reliability, the older Novell server retired and replaced, and
    workstations replaced to accommodate new applications.
        Working with Senate Security on disaster preparedness plans, the
    Xscribe software for Captioning and Reporters was installed and tested
    on Compaq laptops. In emergencies, should the Senate convene in some
    location other than the Capitol, Reporters could use laptops to process
    legislation. The final image copy of this laptop software was recorded
    on CD-ROM, and transported to the secure locker in the Disbursing
    Office vault.

    Official Reporters of Debates (ST-41/44)

        The Reporters and Captioning personnel utilize the same caption
    software, with the exception that Captioning Service sends encoded
    output to the Senate Recording Studio, and Reporters send Ascii files
    to GPO. Detailees add at the final stage, added code for MicroComp
    formats prior to transferring the files to GPO. In Q1/Q2 of 1999, our
    staff upgraded the Reporters software to allow operation of the Xscribe
    application in a Windows 95 environment.
        This operation has been tested previously in Caption Services.
    Meanwhile ongoing evaluation of replacement software continues with the
    Case-catalyst software. Hardware upgrades are planned in Q2/Q3 of
    fiscal year 2000 to replace and retire the Novell server and
    workstations in both Reporters and Captioning departments, condense
    email operations by combining the Reporters and Captioning department
    with the Secretary's central email post office.

    The Senate Gift Shop LAN (in two separate locations)

        At the request of GAO, for security reasons, the Gift Shop LAN and
    the Stationery LAN must be isolated from each other and neither
    connected to the Secretary's LAN. The Gift Shop LAN houses the
    inventory and transaction records for the Gift Shop. In August of 1998,
    an NT Server was installed by Info systems staff as a Primary Domain
    controller. Working with Telecom, SAA, and Stationery staff and
    consultants, the necessary fault-tolerant components were installed,
    and networking requirements identified to replace the current MAI
    mainframe. In December 1998, Info systems staff developed a standard
    software template, and procedure to install new NT clients. The
    existing MAI mainframe and all existing PC's were replaced in Q1/99
    with Y2K compliant hardware and software compliance testing completed
    in June 1999.

    The Page School LAN

        The Page School server version 3.51 was upgraded to a Y2K compliant
    version NT Operating System Version 4.0 in August 1999. CC:MAIL server
    software and clients software upgrades were also completed at this
    time. Network security and scanning capabilities were added in
    September.

    The Office of Senate Security LAN

        The Office of Senate Security inventories and tracks all classified
    information that comes into the Senate. In the Fall of 1996 their
    system was completely upgraded from a Novell system to a new Windows NT
    LAN with top-of-the-line equipment and a new Document Management System
    was purchased. For security reasons, the computer systems in Senate
    Security cannot be connected to any other system in the Senate so two
    PCs connected to the Secretary's LAN (and not to their LAN) have been
    installed so that staff can have access to cc:mail and the Internet.
    cc:mail Upgrades were performed to bring the client version up to at
    least version 6.x. In 1999, NT server software upgrades were installed
    to achieve Y2K compliance.

    The Senate Disbursing Office LAN

        By the end of September 1998, all new Windows 95 clients had been
    installed in Disbursing, but no additional changes had occurred with
    respect to the NT Server operation. In November 1998, an upgraded NT
    server hardware configuration was identified and ordered from SAA. This
    replacement NT server was installed in 1999 with a level of hardware
    fault tolerance which implements a disk drive storage array and
    redundant power supplies to achieve zero levels of server downtime. In
    October 1999, the Disbursing office migrated the payroll application
    and was certified Y2K compliant.

    The Office of Public Records (OPR)

        OPR uses FileNet, a UNIX-based document management and imaging
    system, for maintaining public records such as lobbying forms; campaign
    finance reports; and financial disclosure reports. PC's are available
    to the public for searching, viewing, and printing these documents.
    These six patron systems were replaced in Q2/99. The FileNet workflow
    system includes scanning the original document into the database,
    inputting some data regarding the document, and then microfilming it
    for archival purposes.
        In Q2/99 the server software was upgraded to NT 4.0, allowing the
    FileNet application software to be ported to the next higher Y2K
    compliant version. In June 1999, all hardware and software had been
    certified Y2K compliant. A working group has been established to tackle
    the current projects with the Federal Election Commission and the Lobby
    Disclosure Act.

    Bill Clerk (S-123)

        All hardware for the Bill Clerks was replaced in 1999. Older LEGIS
    applications were retired, and LIS software tested and certified
    compliant in November 1999. Information systems staff continue to
    monitor and support the ATS amendment tracking process in this office
    to insure proper operation.

    Enrolling Clerk (S-139)

        In May of 1998, the Government Printing Office, in conjunction with
    the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, moved Senate legislative
    documents from a DEC-VAX mainframe located at GPO, to a standalone
    secure HTTP Web server located at SOLC. This Web server was only
    accessible from a single workstation in the Enrolling clerks office.
    Working with SAA Networking operation personnel, in August 1999
    internet accounts were established and access to SOLC from every
    desktop workstation was implemented. In December 1999, all workstations
    were upgraded and LIS software tested with existing applications.

    Journal Clerk (S-135)

        With the disconnection of the DEC mainframe noted above, the
    Journal Clerk could no longer retrieve the previous days Congressional
    Record from GPO. In December 1998, beta testing continued for replacing
    the `` two PC's'' for every clerk in the Journal Clerk's office with
    one single Windows 95 client that would execute WordPerfect and Ventura
    applications. This information produces a camera-ready Journal output
    to be sent to GPO for publication. This process was completed in March
    1999, and all clerk system software migrated to Microsoft Windows 95.
        Networking applications to the previous Novell server were no
    longer required, and a new Ventura8 application was utilized to print
    the Senate Journal in December 1999.

    Morning Business/Daily Digest/Court Reporters

        All hardware workstations were replaced in the Daily Digest in
    1999. As part of the overall LIS hardware platform upgrade, all
    existing WordPerfect macros were tested and verified for successful
    production of the Congressional Record.

    Senate Library

        The primary support goal for the Senate Library was to upgrade and
    replace all existing hardware and software prior to the Library move in
    January 1999. In December 1998, Info staff personnel replaced all
    Library Windows workstations, added a NT 4.0 Server, and implemented
    improved network printing for the Senate Library. DataTrek replacement
    software was purchased to meet Y2K compliancy in September 1998 but
    proved unsatisfactory. Beginning in March of 1999, a suitable
    replacement application needed to be found, and the TLC Corporation was
    selected a the vendor of choice. The drawback was the short time frame
    to completed the MARC catalog conversion and the installation of a
    separate Oracle NT Server for the Library. Information Systems staff
    installed the necessary operating systems, and converted the existing
    Windows 95 software templates to Windows NT. In January 2000, TLC
    installed the Oracle Server application, and converted MARC catalog
    successfully. This achievement, simply put, means that any Secretary
    employee can verify the status of a particular book in the Senate
    Library from their desktop web browser application.

    Printing and Document Services (OPDS--SH-B04)

        In April 1998, SAA contracted Wang to install a new server for
    Printing and Document Services. Wang installed the NT server as a
    Secondary Domain Controller to the Secretary's LAN and transported the
    hardware to Postal Square for further engineering. In August 1998,
    Secretary staff reinstalled the operating system at Postal Square for
    SAA development staff. In June 1999, this server was relocated to OPDS
    and installed by Information Systems staff as part of the Secretary's
    LAN. Project completion was scheduled for Q2/Q3 1999 with the transfer
    of this server to Printing and Documents Services. In September 1999,
    Y2K testing occurred, and new applications for Hearing and Billing
    verification were installed and deemed compliant for operation on
    October 1, 1999.
        In order to maintain Y2K compliance, GPO installed an additional
    Unix server to transfer files between the existing Docutech printer and
    the main GPO facility in December 1999.

    Year 2000 Department Status

        The primary goal of Information Systems Department this past year
    was to insure Year 2000 readiness and compliance for all installed
    hardware and software systems.
        In conjunction with the Sergeant of Arms Y2K Project Office, the
    Mitretek Group, the Architect of the Capitol, the James Martin
    Consulting Group, and the Y2K Legislative Branch Committee have all
    corroborated and planned together to accomplish this goal. Y2K
    compliance became mandatory requirement for all new projects.
        The Legislative Information System (LIS), which is composed of the
    new Document Management System, Amendment Tracking, and Committee
    Scheduling replaced the current LEGIS Mainframe application and passed
    compliance testing in November 1999.
        The Financial Information System (FMIS) applications consist of two
    modules, FAMIS and ADPICS, are compliant and in present use in
    Disbursing, SAA, and the Secretary's office.
        Other Y2K projects included the replacement hardware and software
    for the Office of Printing and Document Services, and the mainframe
    replacement in the Stationery Room/Gift Shop. OPDS was completed for
    the beginning of the new fiscal year 2000 on October 1, 1999, while
    Stationery completion occurred in June 1999.
        Major efforts resolved numerous Y2K potential problems in 1998 and
    1999. Every hardware and software system was verified compliant prior
    to the century change. Proper prior planning prevented poor
    performance. The Y2K millennium bug evolved into the Y2 okay bug.

                          WEBMASTER INTERNET SERVICES

        The Webmaster for the Office of the Secretary designs, developments
    and maintains web sites to provide Senate staff, and to a lesser degree
    the general public, access to those administrative, legislative, and
    financial services that are the responsibility of the Secretary of the
    Senate. The Secretary also uses the Senate public web site as a means
    of educating the public about the Senate as an institution.
    E-Mail Stats
        During the impeachment trial in January and February the Webmaster
    received an average of 1,500 messages each month. E-mail traffic
    returned to normal levels for the remainder of 1999. In an typical
    month, the webmaster receives about 250 messages. This amount has been
    consistent over the years, however, the webmaster is receiving more
    appropriate questions regarding where to find information online and
    less comments directed towards Senators. This may be because the new
    site design makes it easy for visitors to find their Senator's e-mail
    address. In addition, this year showed a substantial increase in
    questions by students working on class assignments. Typical questions
    asked include, ``who is the Majority Leader; who is the President of
    the Senate; or how long is the term of a Senator?'' Instead of
    answering these questions the webmaster provides instructions on where
    to find the information on the web site.

    The Senate Web Site

        The Senate web site was redesigned for the 106th Congress and was
    released on January 6th. Public response to the new release was
    extremely positive. During January and February the site design was
    fine-tuned and the content was expanded.
        The Senate web site averages about 25,000 visitors a day. The main
    Senate Home Page itself is accessed approximately 11,500 times a day.
    Visitors to the Senate web site stay on the average about 15 minutes.
        The presence of the Office of the Secretary on the Senate web site
    was enhanced this year. Descriptive information about the organization
    and biographical information about the Secretary was posted.
    Hacking Incident
        The Senate web site was hacked on May 27th and vandalized again on
    June 11th. The Office of the Secretary worked closely with the Sergeant
    at Arms to assure that the data on the site was not compromised.
    Security measures on the internet server were enhanced and the business
    processes for posting to the server were redesigned.
    Legislative Reports
        The legislative reports on the Senate web site in the past have
    been generated from the LEGIS system and posted each evening to reflect
    the floor activity that day. During 1999 these reports were rewritten
    to run from the new LIS DMS. The Office of the Secretary has been
    working together with the Sergeant at Arms to make sure these reports
    are accurate when generated from the new source.
    Senate Intranet Enhancements
        During 1999 plans were developed and implementation begun to
    greatly enhance and redesign the Secretary's web presence within the
    Senate. A new structure for organizing and presenting the information
    was developed based on how Senate staff look for information. A graphic
    design for the site was drafted and received initial approval.
        The web pages of several of the Departments of the Office of the
    Secretary were enhanced in 1999 to bring more information and services
    to Senate staff.
        A web page for the Disbursing Office was created to make benefit
    forms and instructions available to Senate staff in PDF format for
    downloading.
        The web page for the Document Room was redesigned and an order form
    was posted for online requesting of documents.
        A web site was developed for the Office of Public Records. The
    various forms that are required to be filled out by Senate staff are
    available for downloading in PDF format.
        During 1999 a web server was configured and installed on the
    Secretary's network. This server is currently being used as a
    development server, however, in 2000 it will be converted to the
    production server for an intranet accessible by Secretary staff only.

                    Interparliamentary Services--Trips 1999

        January 7-11, 1999.--Codel Kyl; Israel, Jordan; (Senators Kyl, K.B.
    Hutchison, Enzi)
        April 4-11, 1999.--Codel Daschle; Argentina, Brazil, Chile;
    (Senators Daschle, Reid, Dorgan, Campbell)
        April 16-18, 1999.--Leadership Codel; Germany, Belgium, Italy,
    Albania, Macedonia; (Senators Stevens, Levin, Nickles, Robb, Thompson,
    Roberts, Durbin, Biden Baucus)
        May 14-17, 1999.--Codel Hutchison/Lautenberg; Balkans; (Senators
    K.B. Hutchison, Lautenberg, Harkin, Grams, G. Smith, Voinovich)
        May 20-24, 1999.--Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group; Quebec,
    Canada; Chairman: Senator Murkowski; Vice Chairman: Senator Murray;
    (Senators Murkowski, Grassley, Akaka, Inhofe, DeWine, Grams, Voinovich)
        May 25-June 4, 1999.--North Atlantic Assembly (NATO Parliamentary
    Assembly); Poland, Switzerland, Lithuania; Chairman: Senator Roth; Vice
    Chairman: Senator Biden; (Senators Roth, Biden, Murkowski, Inhofe);
    (Canceled)
        June 25-27, 1999.--Mexico--U.S. Interparliamentary Group; Savannah,
    Georgia; Chairman: Senator Coverdell; Vice Chairman: Senator Dodd;
    (Senators Coverdell, Sessions)
         July 4-11, 1999.--Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe
    (OSCE); St. Petersburg, Russia; Co-Chairman: Senator Campbell;
    (Senators Campbell, K.B. Hutchison, Voinovich)
        July 23-25, 1999.--British American Parliamentary Group;
    Greenbrier, West Virginia; Chairman: Senator Stevens; Vice Chairman:
    Senator Byrd; (Senators Stevens, Byrd, Domenici, Cochran, Reid,
    Roberts, Reed, Enzi)
        August 13-15, 1999.--Codel Daschle; Cuba; (Senators Daschle,
    Dorgan)
        November 11-20, 1999.--North Atlantic Assembly (NATO Parliamentary
    Assembly); Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia; Chairman: Senator Roth;
    Vice Chairman: Senator Biden; (Senators Roth, Biden, Grassley, Akaka,
    Bennett); (Canceled)
    Interparliamentary Services: Official Foreign Visitors in 1999
        January 25--Ukranian Parliamentarians (20) (Canceled)
        February 24--His Excellency Dr. Carlos Ruckauf, Vice President of
    Argentina (5)
        March 25--His Excellency Yevgeniy Primakov, Prime Minister of
    Russia (10) (Canceled)
        April 22--His Excellency Tony Blair, Prime Minister United Kingdom
    (6)
        April 23--50th Anniversary of NATO Joint Leadership Event (522)
        April 23--His Excellency Eduard Shevardnadze, President of Georgia
    (9) (Canceled)
        May 4--Canadian Parliamentarian reception (20) (Canceled)
        May 4--His Excellency Keizo Obuchi, Prime Minister of Japan (15)
        May 20--His Majesty Abdullah bin al-Hussein, King of Jordan (6)
        May 27--Iraqi National Congress (6)
        May 28-29--The Honorable Harold Romer, Deputy Director General of
    the European Parliament (1)
        June 16--Mr. Howard Wilson, Ethics Counsellor, Canadian Government
    (1)
        June 30--His Excellency Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt
    (8)
        July 13--His Excellency John Howard, MP Prime Minister of Australia
    (7)
        July 20--His Excellency Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel (1)
        July 27--His Excellency Sergey V. Stepashin, Prime Minister of
    Russia (11)
        September 13--British Parliamentarians, Delphi International (8)
        September 21-28--Members of the Russian Federation Leadership
    Program (9)
        September 22--His Excellency Andres Pastrana, President of Colombia
    (7)
        September 23--(NATO) Parliamentary Assembly (64)
        September 23--His Excellency Eduard Shevardnadze, President of
    Georgia (7)
        October 14--Members of the National People's Congress of China (9)
    (Canceled)
        November 3--Iraqi National Congress (7)
        November 4--Senator Margaret Reid, President of Australian Senate
    (7)
        November 4--His Excellency Milo Djukanovic, President of Montenegro
    (6)
        November 4--Canadian Delegation (5)
        November 8-12--Mr. Andrew Snedden, Australian Parliamentarian (1)
        November 17--Dr. Bae Souk-ki, Korean National Assembly (1)
        November 19--Kuwaiti Diplomats (13)
        December 10--Mr. Benedetti, Mayor of Milan, Italy (7)
        December 18--Students from Mexico's Institute of Technology (7)
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Timothy S. Wineman

        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
    Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2001.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimates for the Senate
    have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
    Fiscal Year 2001. This Budget has been developed in accordance with
    requests and proposals submitted by the various offices and functions
    of the Senate. The total budget estimates for the Senate are
    $616,041,000. which reflect an increase of $80,366,000. or 15 percent
    over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000 and does not reflect
    any adjustments to these estimates which may be presented to your
    Committee during these hearings. The total appropriations for the
    Senate for fiscal year 2000 are $535,675,000. An individual analysis of
    the budget estimates for all functions and offices has been included in
    the Senate Budget Book, previously provided to your Committee.
        The budget estimates for fiscal year 2001 are divided into three
    major categories as follows:

    Senate Items............................................     $98,466,000
    Senate Contingent Expense Items.........................     460,357,000
    Senate Joint Items......................................      57,218,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL.............................................     616,041,000

        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 2001 over
    the fiscal year 2000 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $34,214,000
    increase in administrative expenses and capital assets, primarily
    attributable to the request of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
    the Senate; (2) $21,107,000 increase in the budget estimate for
    Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account to fully fund
    the allowances which are under-funded as a result of the consolidation
    of population categories, increases in the populations of various
    states, and the increase in the Legislative Assistance Allowance
    authorized in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, and the
    $50,000 per Member per year increase in the Administrative and Clerical
    Assistance Allowance authorized by the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Acts, 1999 and 2000; (3) $11,401,000 for the anticipated
    3.7 percent cost of living increase for fiscal year 2001, and the
    annualization costs of the fiscal year 2000 cost of living adjustment;
    (4) $7,489,000 increase in agency contributions applicable to the cost
    of living adjustments and other personnel increase requests; (5)
    $6,155,000 for personnel adjustments other than the cost of living,
    attributable primarily to the budget request of the Capitol Police.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
    Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2001.

                             CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We recognize your
    involvement with the visitor center over time and that this has
    been a major activity, a major interest. Can we do it for $200
    million?
        Mr. Sisco. The last budget was $265 million. I for one--and
    I think the sentiment is shared by others--that any time the
    Architect comes back and proposes anything that goes north of
    that number, we ask where the cuts would come from. So the
    commission actually approved the project within the context of
    $265 million--$100 million appropriated, approximately $30
    million on hand and then $135 million raised privately.
        The answer is I think that we can, but it is going to
    require discipline and diligence.
        Senator Bennett. You said 50-50, so I thought, okay, if it
    is $100 million, that means $100 million raised. So it is not
    50-50. It is 50-50 kind of the way the Government figures 50-
    50.
        Mr. Sisco. It is 50-50 in the sense that we had $100
    million appropriated and that the 501(c)(3)'s fund for the
    Capitol visitor center target is $100 million. So that is 50-50
    out of the chute while we go through the design stages over the
    next 12 months, with a $35 million--part of the $165 million--
    as a contingency.
        As I am viewing it right now, we ought to have it as a $200
    million project while we go through the design phase, while the
    decisions are made getting to the point of where a contract can
    be negotiated and let for the construction piece of it.
        Senator Bennett. Then there will be another $35 million
    Federal and $35 million private?
        Mr. Sisco. If that is needed and is the decision of the
    commission.

                              SUCCESSION PLANNING

        Senator Bennett. Okay. Last year you talked about
    succession planning. Do you want to make any comment about that
    again this year, just to tell us where you are?
        Mr. Sisco. I would be happy to. We have viewed succession
    planning as extremely important because these people--
    especially in the legislative areas, especially in the
    financial areas, and in other areas in the Senate--take a lot
    of time in place on the job to learn these jobs and to get the
    institutional memory. We have had a number of people who have
    30, 35 years of experience as department heads and others
    within the departments who have retired and who in the future
    will retire.
        So what we have been continuing to concentrate on--in each
    of the departments--is to have two or three people deep,
    depending on the size of the department. We are accomplishing
    succession planning to where the services to the Senate and
    institutional memory will not be handicapped in the future, by
    promoting from within, and we are continuing to try to retain
    the very best people we have got and get them in a position to
    move up as people do retire, within their own departments.
        Also, we are doing cross-training, where people can go from
    one department to another--especially in the legislative area,
    where we have eight departments. This past year we have
    reorganized it slightly and put all of the legislative staff
    who serve the chamber, who serve the legislative process--the
    clerks, the people who serve at the desk, and the people in our
    offices behind the scenes, who do not serve in the chamber but
    are very important to it--under the coordination and management
    of the legislative clerk, Dave Tinsley, so that we have one
    person looking at cross-training within those legislative
    departments.
        A third area that I think of in terms of long-term
    planning--GAO right now is, at our request, looking at the
    disbursing office management setup and will come back to me and
    therefore to the Senate with recommendations for any changes
    that are needed there for an optimum organizational type
    structure, with the new technology that we have arranged for,
    that will carry us into the future.
        Right now we have in every department an experienced
    department head, and we have another person who is capable of
    moving into that position, throughout the Secretary's Office.
    And again, in larger departments we go three deep, especially
    in the legislative areas.
        So it is something that we will continue to do, because the
    people who serve here year in and year out as Senators come and
    go have 30 or 35 or 40 years, and it is critical that we get
    the very best people and keep them.
        Senator Bennett. Very good.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I have no further questions. Thank you again for your hard
    work and your forward planning. We will see what we can do
    about finding a little more money.
        Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

        Question. In 1995, Congress embarked on an information initiative
    which was an enterprise-wide approach to the creation, exchange and
    maintenance of legislative information. This initiative was designed to
    improve the efficiency of the legislative process for all the
    legislative agencies. In 1997, the Senate Rules Committee and the House
    Administration Committee approved the establishment of a data standards
    program using the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). The
    Senate and House agreed to meet in regular coordinating committee and
    technical committee meetings to address policy issues and to guide the
    development of these data standards, which are now focused on a subset
    of SGML called XML, or Extensible Markup Language. In your written
    testimony, you reported that the most important LIS/DMS enhancement
    effort for this year will be the completion and implementation of the
    SGML/XML feasibility study. Please provide for the record a report on
    the extent and nature of the Senate's participation in the SGML/XML
    project including the Senate's plan, budget and schedule for
    implementation of this important program for information exchange.
        Answer. The Office of the Secretary of the Senate, with the Office
    of the Legislative Counsel, continues to work closely with the Office
    of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, other House offices, the
    Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Library of Congress (LOC)
    Congressional Research Service (CRS) to develop the SGML/XML data
    standards program. The Senate has been a part of this program since
    initial discussions began. The extent and nature of the participation
    and progress of the Senate since 1997 is detailed below.

    Senate Participation and Progress

        In April 1997, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
    House of Representatives issued ``Recommendations for a Data Standards
    Program for Legislative Information,'' a report prepared for the Senate
    Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House
    Oversight. The report, which followed a study by an outside consultant,
    recommended the establishment of a data standards program, and
    recommended the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) as ``an
    appropriate technology on which to base the preparation of legislative
    information and document management systems.'' The report further noted
    that ``. . . standards will evolve over time as technology and the
    capacity of offices and agencies to adopt these technologies evolves.''
    Since that time, as anticipated, a subset of SGML known as the
    eXtensible Markup Language (XML) has become a standard, and XML offers
    great potential for this initiative.
        Two staff working groups, the Coordinating Committee and the
    Technical Committee, serve to guide and direct SGML/XML activities. The
    Coordinating Committee, composed of one representative each from the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee on House
    Administration, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the
    House, sets overall direction, finds consensus, and reviews the work of
    the technical team. The Senate and House Data Standards Managers,
    employees of the Secretary and Clerk respectively, advise and assist
    the work of the Coordinating Committee. The Technical Committee,
    composed of Senate and House staff and staff from the legislative
    branch agencies, is co-chaired by the Data Standards Managers.
        The SGML Coordinating Committee, at its February 2000 meeting,
    began consideration of a proposal to formally adopt XML rather than
    SGML as the standard data format. Both the Senate and House Data
    Standards Managers and the Technical Committee recommended XML as the
    standard. Staff from GPO and LOC also attended the February meeting and
    participated in this recommendation. As of this date, the
    recommendation is being reviewed.
        The Technical Committee meets monthly; meetings include discussions
    and recommendations concerning Document Type Descriptions (DTD)
    development. A DTD defines the structure of the document by recording
    the names of the parts of the document and their relationships in that
    document. Other sessions feature demonstrations by vendors concerning
    new technologies, and presentations by committee members concerning
    similar SGML/XML activities within their organizations.
        Starting in January 1998 and continuing through December 1999,
    outside contractors developed DTDs for bills, resolutions, amendments,
    committee reports, conference reports, compilations, and the U.S. Code.
    The House contracted for the DTD development, and Senate and House
    staff members performed document analysis and preliminary DTD
    validation at workshops held for each document type.
        In mid-1998, a contractor of the Senate, KPMG, conducted an
    evaluation of several SGML editors, and the top two candidates were
    Corel WordPerfect 8 + SGML and ArborText Adept Editor. WordPerfect 8 +
    SGML was chosen as the editor to be implemented for the creation of
    bills, amendments, and resolutions using SGML. However, during the
    development of this application by SAIC, also a contractor of the
    Senate, it was determined that WordPerfect 8 + SGML was not robust
    enough to support the complicated and varied processes used by the
    Senate Legislative Counsel for the creation and editing of bills, and
    work on implementing a bill authoring application was temporarily
    suspended.
        In late 1998 and early 1999, Senate staff participated in the first
    production-level SGML project as the House and Senate jointly issued
    the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 1774 to
    Present. This joint project represents the first application in which
    data/documents are created and edited using an SGML editor. Senate data
    is created, maintained, and published by the Senate Historical Office.
    Results of this effort are available at http://bioguide.congress.gov.
    This project yielded valuable lessons concerning the building of an
    SGML application, which are discussed in the Document Management System
    Status Report and Plan presented by the Clerk of the House in March,
    1999.
        In 1998, the World Wide Consortium, the standards organization for
    the World Wide Web, issued the XML standard, and vendors began to
    develop software tools to support XML. In mid-1999, the House evaluated
    several XML and SGML editors, and the top editors in that evaluation
    were SoftQuad XMetaL, ArborText Adept Editor, and WordPerfect 9 + SGML.
    Subsequently, in August 1999, with the approval of the Senate Committee
    on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration,
    the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House invited
    representatives of the Senate and House Legislative Counsels, the
    Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, the Chief Administrative Officer of the
    House, the Law Revision Counsel, and GPO, LOC and CRS to participate in
    the Bills and Resolutions SGML/XML Feasibility Study to ``evaluate
    SGML/XML editors, create XML style sheets, evaluate the SGML/XML
    capability of Microcomp, and examine the use of digital signaturing as
    it relates to these processes.''

    The SGML/XML Feasibility Study for Bills

        While SGML/XML can provide many benefits for processing electronic
    documents, the difficulty lies in creating those documents in the first
    place. The goal of the Feasibility Study, which began in mid-September
    1999, is to determine if it is possible to create an easy-to-use XML
    application for the authoring of legislative documents. This joint
    effort has focused on the authoring, editing, and composition of bills
    and resolutions by the Senate and House Legislative Counsels.
        The Senate Legislative Counsel and Enrolling Clerk continue to
    refine a list of high-level requirements for the new editing
    environment. The Senate Legislative Counsel is also working with the
    House Legislative Counsel ``to develop a joint list of proposed short-
    term criteria for evaluating the XML application to ensure that the XML
    application meets basic usability requirements and is user friendly for
    both offices.''
        The Senate Legislative Counsel has also provided the following
    general requirements for the implementation of an XML editing
    application--

      --The editing environment must allow drafters and editors of
            legislation at all levels of technical ability to work at least
            as efficiently as they currently do in the XyWrite editing
            environment.
      --The editing environment must allow users to work at all times in a
            WYSIWYG view with tags turned off.
      --An identical editing environment and composition system must be
            used by all users in the core legislative offices (Senate and
            House Legislative Counsels, Senate and House Enrolling Clerks,
            and the Government Printing Office).
      --An ongoing program must be established which provides instruction
            for new users and a comprehensive user manual.
      --Support and maintenance for the system must be provided with
            continuous availability (24 hours per day, 7 days per week).

        Although the Feasibility Study has focused on the authoring/editing
    application, it has other important components. One of the key efforts
    in the study is to validate and refine the Bill DTD to ensure that all
    of the components of legislation are included and appropriately
    described. This will enable the document to be both composed in the
    proper format(s) and processed in other ways, such as automatically
    generating and synchronizing tables of contents for the document. As
    the document is further described and the DTD is refined, GPO is
    working to ensure that the XML bill documents can be composed in the
    same formats that are currently printed. GPO is up-to-date with the
    Bill DTD and has produced printed output from several XML test bills.
        The analysis and input provided during the study has guided DTD
    changes and additions and has defined the direction of the ``proof-of-
    concept'' development of the Feasibility Study. Staff in the Office of
    the Clerk have done much of the development work on the programs and
    style sheets, and Senate and House staff have provided testing and
    feedback. The analysis and development work has focused on the document
    creation process and methods to automate that work and has identified
    potential process improvements to save time and reduce repetitive work.
        Another important activity of the study is the evaluation of newly-
    available XML tools, and the ``proof-of-concept'' development processes
    have provided feedback to vendors concerning their software. The two
    editors chosen for the study were SoftQuad XMetaL and Corel WordPerfect
    9 + SGML/XML. SoftQuad has been very responsive to feedback generated
    by study participants and has corrected bugs in the XMetaL software and
    implemented some of the requested features. Major problems, however,
    have been discovered in the WordPerfect software, and, as a result,
    most of the development effort has focused on the XMetaL application.
    ArborText Adept Editor, which placed second in the 1998 and 1999
    evaluations, was not chosen for further study or development because,
    unlike XMetaL, it requires a proprietary programming language for
    customization. Reusability and long-term maintenance benefits can be
    gained by using industry standards and non-proprietary languages for
    application development.
        As a part of the Feasibility Study, Senate and House staff members
    are working with GPO and CRS representatives to examine SGML/XML issues
    specific to their organizations, such as requirements for a ``during-
    composition'' process that will create a separate ``table of contents''
    document to be used for Web navigation and will include insertion of
    page and line information in the XML file. The Senate Data Standards
    Manager has also conducted several one-hour workshops for CRS staff on
    XML, the Bill DTD, and other related topics.
        Results of the Feasibility Study for Bills and Resolutions will
    guide the implementation strategies for the overall SGML/XML Project.
    Senate LIS Project Office Plan for the SGML/XML Project
        The LIS Project Office under the Secretary of the Senate is
    implementing an SGML/XML plan focusing on the specific needs of the
    Senate. The SGML/XML plan involves several key initiatives, including
    the following--

      --Completion of the Feasibility Study for bills and resolutions.
      --Conversion of legacy documents.
      --Implementation of the SGML/XML authoring system for bills and
            resolutions.
      --Implementation and integration of the Senate Office of Legislative
            Counsel document system into the LIS/DMS.

        Completion of the Feasibility Study for bills and resolutions.--It
    is the desire of Senate Legislative Counsel to use a document
    authoring/editing application that is identical to one used by the
    House Legislative Counsel to facilitate collaborative sessions. To
    achieve this, the Feasibility Study analysis and development has
    targeted joint functionality as well as efforts to create a data
    exchange format with a common XML editor application. However,
    differences in the work processes and culture do exist. A conclusion of
    the study may be to use the common data standard for data exchange but
    implement different editors or applications to address the different
    requirements for each office.
        Conversion of legacy documents.--The development of a SGML/XML
    authoring system includes the need to use documents or parts of
    documents from previous years. These legacy documents constitute a very
    large and important database of information. The plan calls for the
    scope of the conversion to be determined--how many documents,
    specifically which documents, initiated by whom, level of completeness,
    and so on. To reuse any of these documents, they must first be
    converted from their current coding system (Microcomp locator codes) to
    the new SGML/XML coding system. Converting documents from a general
    markup (as the one currently used) to a very specific markup such as
    XML may require manual modifications after conversion. Conversely, a
    conversion in the other direction (XML to Microcomp locator codes) has
    already been accomplished, and this conversion will allow all users and
    offices to transition to the new document format and new document
    creation/editing processes. This conversion will allow other offices to
    receive the XML-generated data in the Microcomp locator format, which
    will enable them to continue their processing without interruption
    while XML applications for all legislative document types are developed
    over time.
        Implementation of the SGML/XML authoring system for bills and
    resolutions.--Although the initial focus will be on the needs of the
    Senate Legislative Counsel, the requirements of the Senate Enrolling
    Clerk and Senate Committees will also be incorporated into the creation
    and editing of bill documents.
        The creation, editing and exchange of other legislative document
    types will be included, and the first will be those for which DTDs
    already exist--compilations, conference reports, committee reports, and
    the U.S. Code. The DTDs for these document types will be refined and
    applications will be developed. All remaining legislative documents
    such as treaties, nominations, executive communications, and committee
    hearings will be included in the DTD development process, and the
    overall goal of the XML project is that all legislative documents will
    be created, maintained, and exchanged using a standard data format for
    efficient information processing.
        Implementation and integration of the Senate Legislative Counsel
    document system into the LIS/DMS.--The SGML/XML plan also includes the
    definition of requirements of a ``workgroup'' document management
    system (DMS) for the Legislative Counsel. A significant part of the
    initiative will address the need to integrate with the overall Senate
    LIS/DMS plan and will include a gap analysis of Legislative Counsel
    requirements to identify any areas of conflict or duplication and to
    address any differences. Requirements will include, but not be limited
    to, the following: processing methods, input/output, data storage,
    interfaces, hardware/software, performance, conversion, and processing
    flow. The authoring application included in the implementation of the
    SGML/XML authoring system for bills and resolutions will be considered,
    as appropriate, in the design of this initiative.
    SGML/XML Project Risks and Constraints
        In the course of the SGML/XML Feasibility Study, Senate staff
    identified several issues that require mitigation to ensure completion
    of the study and timely implementation of a production system.
        Incremental release vs. full capability release into the production
    environment.--At the completion of the SGML/XML Feasibility Study, the
    House may prefer to implement an incremental release approach toward a
    full production capability for the House Legislative Counsel. The
    Senate Legislative Counsel is willing to provide testing and input to
    the incremental release process, but prefers an implementation approach
    that targets initial release at the beginning of a Congress and that
    features a complete rollout with full-service capability and associated
    training. This difference in implementation strategies will yield
    different full-production time-lines.
        If the House and Senate agree to different production time-lines,
    the standard data exchange format can be provided, and additional
    preparation will be required to facilitate the effort prior to final
    Senate production release.
        An identical editing environment.--The Senate Legislative Counsel
    expressed a desire to have ``an identical editing environment'' in the
    ``core legislative offices.'' The different implementation strategies
    and differences in work processes in the House and Senate may hinder
    the achievement of this goal. Still, if it is determined that the
    Senate and House editing environments diverge, the goal of exchanging
    documents in a standard data format can be achieved.
        ``Official'' version of legislation during process flow.--The
    implementation and integration of the Legislative Counsel document
    system into the LIS/DMS also has its risks and constraints even before
    this initiative begins. The integration of the Legislative Counsel
    documents into the LIS environments will be one of the most significant
    issues to be addressed. This integration requires a clear understanding
    by all involved of the current status and location of a document--a
    bill, resolution, amendment, etc. And, most importantly, because the
    particular document(s) in process is just that, ``in process,''
    security will allow only those who have a need to know and who have
    reading and/or updating privileges to access the ``official'' version
    during a particular segment of the process flow. Thus, establishing
    tracking and user access requirements before implementation is
    essential.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Activities Estimated
                                                         Completion
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       SGML/XML Project Estimated Time-Line

    Feasibility Study completion.............  June 2000
    Establish system framework/architecture    August 2000
     for SGML/XML authoring system for bills
     and resolutions.........................
    Develop requirements for Senate            October 2000
     Legislative Counsel document system
     integration into LIS/DMS................
    Develop requirements for SGML/XML          January 2001
     authoring system.
    Implement conversion of legacy documents.  September 2001
    Implement SGML/XML authoring system for    September 2001
     bills and resolutions.
    Integrate Legislative Counsel document     September 2001
     system into LIS/DMS.

        SGML/XML Project Estimated Budget

    Authoring initiatives....................  $1,587,600
        Conversion of legacy documents
        Implementation of SGML/XML authoring
         system for bills and resolutions
        Conference Reports, Compilations,
         Committee Reports, U.S. Code,
         Treaties and Nominations DTDs
    Integration of Legislative Counsel         $1,134,000
     document system into LIS/DMS.
    SGML/XML estimated total.................  $2,721,600
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As requirements for each initiative are completed, the estimates will be
      refined.

                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    STATEMENT OF HON. JIM ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
                DOORKEEPER
    ACCOMPANIED BY LORETTA SYMMS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS

        Senator Bennett. The next witness is the Senate Sergeant at
    Arms, the Honorable Jim Ziglar.
        Mr. Ziglar is accompanied by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms,
    Loretta Symms. We understand that also the newly appointed
    Administrative Assistant, Liz McAlhany, is with us and we
    congratulate her on her new position.
        The Sergeant at Arms has requested $136,569,000 for fiscal
    2001. This is a $35,514,000, or 35 percent, increase. Do not be
    frightened by my earlier comment, but be aware that we are
    paying attention to this.
        I should note again for the record the work the Sergeant at
    Arms office did with respect to Y2K turned it into a non-event,
    and we like non-events when it comes to some of the
    projections. So I was grateful to hear Mr. Sisco talk about the
    cooperation and get that formally on the record. But since we
    use this committee as a vehicle for spreading the word, not
    only to you, Mr. Ziglar, but to your predecessor, and I think
    maybe caused your predecessor a few uneasy moments, I think we
    should for the record indicate how well the Sergeant at Arms
    office has performed on that regard. We are very grateful to
    you and all of your people and hope that you will pass that on
    to those who worked so hard.
        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. With that, we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here to present our 2001 budget request.
        I would like to note that there are some other folks in the
    audience that are part of the management team which was
    recently reconfigured. Liz McAlhany, who is now the new
    Administrative Assistant, and she was before that the Director
    of Customer Relations, where she did a terrific job. In fact,
    she did such a great job there that I asked her to come over
    and work as my Administrative Assistant, and she is doing a
    great job in this new job.
        Chris Dey is here. I think we all know Chris. He is the
    Chief Financial Officer.
        The new head of Office Services, succeeding Liz, is Esther
    Gordon. Where is Esther? She was just recently appointed.
        Kim Winn is the head of Information and Technology Support
    Services, Tracy Williams is the head of our Technology
    Development area, and Rick Edwards is head of Central
    Operations. There are a number of other folks in here who are
    no less important, but these people are the core management
    team that we have now.
        I have offered written testimony earlier that is much more
    extensive than----
        Senator Bennett. Yes, it will be included in the record.
        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you very much.
        I would like to discuss briefly some things that are in
    that testimony and then some things that are not. But first I
    wanted to make the point that you made and that was that last
    year at this time I was here for my first hearing and fairly
    wet behind the ears in this job. I was faced with the daunting
    task of making sure that when the year 2000 rolled around that
    we did not get rolled over.
        I must say that the folks that worked on this did a
    tremendously professional job. We appreciate your recognition
    of that. It was a team effort between ourselves and the
    Secretary of the Senate and everybody else around here. I
    wanted to particularly note that Chick Ciccolella, who was the
    Chief of Operations at the time, now working in the Rules
    Committee, took the lead on our side working on Y2K and did a
    terrific job, and I just wanted to put on the record we
    appreciate what Chick did for us. I think Chick is here. Oh,
    there he is. And we appreciate very much what he did. We came
    through this thing without a glitch or a hitch.
        I also want to express my appreciation to you for the
    leadership that you and Senator Dodd provided in this area, and
    to Christine Ciccone and other members of the staff, Jim
    English and others, who supported our efforts so intensely and
    followed it so closely.

                                 BUDGET PROCESS

        When I was here last year I also, as you may recall, I was
    struggling to try to get my hands around the budget. It was not
    a budget that I really had much to do with because I had just
    gotten here, but I was trying to figure out what the budget was
    all about.
        The one thing I tried to do last year was to understand the
    budget in a format that at least I could understand as a
    businessman. We have broken the budget into an operating budget
    and a capital budget and tried to demonstrate what those two
    components were. Since last year, I have attempted to use the
    budget process as a management tool, again something coming
    from the world that I came from. The budget is always a
    management tool.
        I have to say that so far I have been pleased with the
    results that we have been able to achieve by looking at the
    budget in that context.
        What I would like to do is spend a few minutes telling you
    a little bit about the budget process that we used to get where
    we are in this budget and also to give you a little bit of an
    overview of some of my initiatives in the future. What we did
    this year was to take a modified zero-based budgeting approach
    to this budget. We built it from the bottom up and we examined
    it from the bottom up.
        I literally held hearings in my conference room, budget
    hearings, sort of like what we have here, with each one of the
    department managers within the Sergeant at Arms organization.
    We went through the entire budget line by line with them, asked
    a lot of questions, and we made a lot of adjustments as we went
    along. But what really--when I look back on it, what really
    came out of that, the results that I think are positive from my
    perspective, is that the projects that we were undertaking, or
    are about to undertake, were better defined as a result of that
    process.
        We nailed down our costs more closely to what they really
    are. For example, in the digital area, in terms of taking the
    recording studio to a digitized format, we had projected a $30
    million project over its life. We now have gotten it down to
    about $25 million, so we know a little bit more about our
    potential costs.
        Perhaps the most important point of the exercise was that
    we have established priorities about how we want to do our
    business and what we think is necessary to be done and in what
    order. From this process, I have concluded several things about
    the budget. First, the Sergeant at Arms budget has four
    distinct parts, not two parts as I thought originally, and
    those four parts are what I call operations and maintenance--it
    is not maintenance in the same context as if you have a factory
    and you are maintaining your infrastructure, but that part of
    the budget that reflects your personnel costs and your expenses
    of ongoing operations in the Senate.
        The second part is the technology capital investment part,
    which is the hard cost of upgrading, improving, or adding to
    our technology in all of its many manifestations.
        The third part would be what I call mandated allowances and
    allotments. That is broken down into those things that we are
    required to provide to Senate offices and Senate committees on
    an ongoing basis, such as the computer services fund and paying
    the rent for State offices. For example, with respect to State
    offices, the Senate, as you know, last year increased the
    amount of money available for that. So those are embedded costs
    that we do not have a lot of control over. They are mandated
    for us to do.
        Then finally we have nondiscretionary items. For example,
    the biggest part of those are things that we fund that provide
    technical assistance for other people in the Senate family.
    These expenditures are primarily for the Secretary of the
    Senate with respect to his LIS project and FMIS project. A lot
    of the funding for those projects actually comes through our
    budget and a lot of the technical services are provided by us,
    although they are his projects and he has the control and the
    direction over them. We do fund a good portion of those
    projects.
        What we have done this year is to present this budget in
    this format, and I will go back to that in a few minutes and
    talk about some of these numbers.

                           OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        The second thing I concluded through this process is that
    we could operate more efficiently and less bureaucratically in
    the Sergeant at Arms operation. As a result of that, in terms
    of the operations and maintenance account items in our budget
    we are actually asking for less money than we did last year, by
    2.4 percent.
        We also are asking for a reduction in our authorized FTE's
    of 32 people. Over a period of 4 years, I have set a goal for
    the reduction in the operations and maintenance line by 10
    percent, and I think we are going to be able to get there.
        Now, what we have done, frankly, is just better utilize the
    people we have. Where there are opportunities to move somebody
    out of an area that maybe is not as stressed as another area,
    we have done that instead of going out and adding additional
    FTE's. So it has worked out quite well in terms of our ability
    to manage our people.
        I would like to note a couple of actions that we have taken
    also in the context of management improvements. First is that
    we have revised our approach to giving merit increases to
    employees. It appeared to me that what we had around here was a
    situation that if you stayed long enough you would get merit
    increases just by virtue of breathing. I do not come from a
    culture that you award raises on that basis.
        So we have restructured our pay award system, merit award
    system, to actually award performance. So far it has gotten
    pretty good reviews among our employees. It certainly will
    incentivize them, and it is also going to require managers to
    do better evaluations of our employees and their performance.
        The second thing that we recently did was a management
    reorganization that eliminated some layers of bureaucracy or
    management structure and also flattened the organization, so
    that we have now more of a team approach, a flat organization,
    where people are forced to communicate and to work together. I
    also am happy to report that, at least from my perspective and
    from the perspective of some of the folks I have talked to,
    this seems to be working out quite nicely in its very early
    stages.
        The third thing that I concluded was that there is a
    disconnect between the budget process and our management
    decisionmaking processes. We now have a monthly financial
    operating report, something we have never had before and again
    something that I was used to in the private sector, because I
    needed to know where I was relative to my budget and my
    expenditures and what my projections were for the rest of the
    year.
        We now have that on a monthly basis. We are still tinkering
    with it to make sure we get the information format in the way
    we want it. But it has been an enormously helpful tool.
        What it does is help us to know what to expect and how to
    plan for those things that happen that you do not expect. Let
    me give you an example of what it has done for us already. As
    of the end of February, we realized that we have a $901,000
    deficit in terms of our current fiscal year budget and our
    projected expenditures through the year. Now, we would not have
    known that until probably August or September based on the way
    we were operating before. But I now know that and I know the
    reason for it is that we have two items that the costs are much
    higher than we thought they were going to be. The Microsoft
    Exchange and Outlook program is going to be more expensive this
    year than we thought and also the cost of carrying and
    maintaining our new mainframe computer is also going to be much
    higher than was estimated.
        That is something to the tune of a little over $3 million
    over what had been estimated. Now, the other side of that trade
    is that our expenses in terms of personnel and ongoing
    expenses, as a result of some of the initiatives we have taken
    to try to manage the place a little better, are down. So when
    you put them together, we only have a $901,000 deficit.
        Well, you say, that is still a $900,000 deficit. It is. But
    I will tell you what: I know enough about where I have money in
    the rest of the system and where I can manage the rest of the
    system so that at the end of the year I do not have that
    problem. If I did not have that information, I would not be
    able to manage that problem. So that is something that I am
    very pleased about, and I think it is going to, in the long
    term, help us run our business a lot better.
        The other thing I am doing is instituting a 5-year
    evergreen budgeting system. We are going to have a proposed
    budget out there for 5 years that is ever renewing itself. Now,
    what that does, as you know, is it helps us to focus our
    strategic thinking not just on what we are going to provide
    next year but what is it we need to be doing 5 years from now
    to provide better service to the Senate and to carry out our
    job in the best possible way.
        It also is going to help us deal with you folks in terms of
    focusing on our needs and what your expectations are in terms
    of the budget request that we will be coming forward with.
        I apologize for taking so much time on these management
    initiatives, but I do think they are important to the long-term
    efficiency and effectiveness of the Senate. Let me turn to our
    budget request, which you pointed out is a bit higher than we
    asked for last year, but there is an explanation. It represents
    a 35.1 percent increase over our fiscal year 2000
    appropriation.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                             FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Fiscal year 2001
                                                                                                   vs. fiscal year
                                                      Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal year   Fiscal           2000
                                                       year      year        2000        year   --------------------
                                                       1999      2000    appropriated    2001                Percent
                                                      actual    request                 request    Amount     Incr/
                                                                                                              Decr
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations & Maintenance.......................     $52.7     $56.2       $54.7       $53.4     ($1.3)      -2.4
    Allowances & Allotments........................      36.4      37.5        36.6        47.4      10.8       29.6
    Technology Capital Investment..................       8.5      18.8         6.9        31.1      24.3      353.7
    Nondiscretionary Items.........................       4.7       3.6         3.0         4.7       1.7       58.2
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total....................................     102.3     116.1       101.2       136.6      35.5       35.1
                                                    ================================================================
    Staffing.......................................       780       795         787         755       (32)      -4.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        We are requesting $136,569,000, which is $35,514,514 over
    the 2000 budget. Our 2000 budget is $101.2 million. Let me
    point out what some of these increases are, because I think
    that is important to note.

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

                FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST--MAJOR INCREASES
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year    Fiscal
                                               2000      year 2001  Increase
                                           appropriated  requested
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mandated Allowances and Allotments...        36.6         47.4      10.8
        Computer Services and Mail               10.2         18.1       7.9
         Systems Funds...................
        State Office Security              ............        1.7       1.7
         Enhancements....................
    Nondiscretionary Items...............         3.0          4.7       1.7
        Legislative Information System...         1.7          2.5        .8
        Financial Management Information           .8          1.3        .5
         System..........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        As I mentioned to you, the operations and maintenance line
    actually is going down as well as our request for FTE
    authorizations. With respect to the mandated allowances and
    allotments, there are two major issues, two major items in
    that. First is the computer services fund, which we are
    recommending an increase of $7.9 million. The reason for that
    is that we have had a one and a half times turn--let me go
    back.
        The cycle is now that you get, as a Senator, to turn over
    your computers one and a half times during a term, which is a
    little bit too long in terms of the cycle of obsolescence of
    these things. So we are trying to go to a twice in a term
    computer cycle within your office and within the committees. So
    that represents that additional amount of money to increase the
    computer services fund so we have a better replacement cycle.
        The second thing that is in there that is a major item is
    security enhancement for State offices. What I have discovered
    as a result of a survey that we did of all Senate offices with
    respect to their State offices is that there is a wide
    divergence of security within those offices, and we are having
    some difficulties out there in the field with people coming
    into offices and threatening staff and things like that.
        Some of the offices are well protected because they are in
    Federal buildings or they made the initiative to have them well
    protected, and some offices are wide open. The reason for that,
    frankly, is because you have an allocation for your office in
    Provo, let us say. Well, you have to make a choice: Am I going
    to have more desks and more equipment or am I going to put in
    an alarm system and maybe monitoring cameras and maybe locking
    doors or something like that that will provide additional
    security?
        A lot of folks say: I need the fax machine more than I need
    the security. Well, we want to take it out of the realm of you
    having to make that choice. So what we have recommended is on
    each--with respect to each office, there is roughly a $4,000
    allotment for security purposes only. It does not come out of
    your total allotment for that office as it is currently
    structured. This is an add-on. If you do not use that money for
    security, you cannot use it for another fax machine or
    something like that. It is specifically for security.
        We think in the long term that this is an important thing
    to do. Obviously, it is an add-on, but it is something in the
    long term we think would be quite important to do.
        Another, smaller item in there that is not on the chart is
    the additional rent that we can pay now for State offices which
    is roughly $600,000. But as you can see, by and large the
    increase in mandated allowances and allotments has to do with
    the computer services fund and the security enhancement fund
    that we are trying to create.
        With respect to the--let us jump over technology and
    capital investment for the moment and go to the
    nondiscretionary items. Nondiscretionary items again are the
    things that by and large we are spending money on for the
    Secretary of the Senate's initiatives for the Legislative
    Information System and the Financial Management Information
    System. Out of a total of $1.7 million for nondiscretionary
    items, $1.3 million of the increase is with respect to LIS and
    FMIS.

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

         FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST--TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL INVESTMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal
                                                            year      Total
                                                            2001      cost
                                                           budget
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Recording Studio Digital Technology..........       7.3      25.2
    Communications Infrastructure.......................       5.2      18.7
    Information Security................................       3.6       3.7
    Messaging Infrastructure and Windows 2000...........       3.3       7.9
    Voice and Paging Infrastructure.....................       2.9       8.2
                                                         -------------------
          Total Priority Investments....................      22.3      63.7
                                                         ===================
    Electronic Printing and Document Archiving..........       5.1       5.1
    Office Productivity Tools...........................       1.7       1.9
    Enterprise Computer Operations......................        .7        .7
    IT Requirements.....................................        .5       1.1
    Internet E-mail Processing..........................        .3       2.0
    Internet Video and Audio............................        .2        .4
    Other Projects......................................        .4        .4
                                                         -------------------
          Total Technology Capital Investments..........      31.2      75.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Now to go over to the technology budget, which is
    aggressive. We have attempted to define those things that we
    need to do for the Senate going forward in order for us to be
    up to date, if you will, technologically and be able to do our
    business better. What we have done here is to lay out for you
    the top five priorities. The above the line items are the ones
    that are our top priorities.
        I would have to say that without a question--well, it is
    hard to say without a question because it depends on your point
    of view--but one of the most critical things that we need to do
    is to take the Senate Recording Studio to digital technology.
    One reason is because we have to. The FCC is mandating that we
    broadcast in digital format by the year 2005, and getting there
    from here is a long process.
        I think we have briefed Christine on this--or we will be
    briefing her on this project and the many phases of it. But it
    is critical that we get started as soon as possible migrating
    to a digital format for everything that we do around here,
    whether it is the Senate floor broadcasting or it is committee
    hearings or whatever.
        The communications infrastructure project is one that is
    also quite important. As you know, we use a very slow speed,
    low capacity frame relay system to communicate with the State
    offices, and that is something that needs to be dealt with as
    soon as we possibly can.
        We have taken some remedial measures in the short term to
    try to deal with the speed of access problem by putting T-1
    lines to one office, one State office for each Senator. But
    that is only a small temporary measure in terms of the overall
    problem that we have.
        Information security, Mr. Chairman, I know is something
    that you are interested in and it is something that we are very
    interested in. The brilliance of some of these kids nowadays
    that can hack into everything you do and mess it up is pretty
    astounding, and we have to find better and better ways to
    protect our information and protect our systems. We have
    several initiatives ongoing that we consider high priority.
        The messaging infrastructure area is also extremely
    critical. Lotus cc:Mail, as you know, is our current e-mail
    system around here. As of September 2001, Lotus will no longer
    support cc:Mail. They do not produce it any more and they will
    not support it after September 2001. So we do not have a whole
    lot of choice about going from that format to a new format.
        After a long process of selection, which included Senate
    offices and committees and outside consultants and our folks
    and the Secretary of the Senate and others, we came up with a
    recommendation that we use the Windows 2000 platform with
    Exchange and Outlook. So we are on our way on that project. It
    is important that we continue to be able to fund that so that
    we can bring it on line in time to take off line a system that
    will no longer be supported.
        Then finally we have the voice and paging infrastructure
    project, where we are attempting--among other things, to bring
    voicemail to the State offices as well as to upgrade it here in
    the District of Columbia. Also, we are doing--as you know,
    working on the paging system to upgrade it and eventually to
    take it nationwide.
        Now, I did note in reading my testimony from last year, Mr.
    Chairman, that you thought that it was rather a nice thing that
    they could not reach you by pager beyond 30 miles, and I want
    you to know that as long as you continue to be chairman of this
    subcommittee, if you only want 30 miles, you are going to get
    it.
        The other items down here are also extremely, we think,
    important projects for the Senate going forward. They are not
    the highest priority projects, but they are important to our
    being able to do our business in a world that requires that we
    be technologically up at the top of the curve.
        I want to emphasize the importance, I think, of making
    these investments over time. We need to be able to be connected
    to the people that we serve, the American people. We need to
    continue to improve our own internal operations in terms of
    management structures, and obviously technology drives a lot of
    how you manage these days. Third, I think we need to
    demonstrate that Government gets it in terms of keeping up in
    the technology area.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my abbreviated remarks and I
    look forward to answering any questions you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. James W. Ziglar

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2001
    funding request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.

                     REPORT ON YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE EFFORT

        I would like to begin my testimony by updating the Committee on the
    status of our Year 2000 conversion effort. I am pleased to report that
    we achieved a near perfect level of success on this project. All Senate
    information technology and infrastructure systems made the transition
    to Year 2000 without incident and indications are that the Senate will
    continue to operate without disruption.
        During the past two years, the Sergeant at Arms organization has
    been fully engaged in a Year 2000 compliance effort. To meet this
    challenge, we executed a disciplined and structured approach to the
    potential Y2K problem, first establishing a central Year 2000 program
    team and then identifying the Senate's core business areas and
    processes.
        We identified sixty-five information technology systems in use by
    the Senate and determined that twenty-two of these systems were
    critical to the Senate's ability to conduct its business. We developed
    a master plan and then renovated, converted or replaced, tested and
    validated each platform, application, database and utility. We also
    developed contingency plans to deal with unpredictable events.
        We are proud that we successfully met the Y2K challenge. We greatly
    appreciate the Committee's support throughout this process. We have
    spent $21,300,000 through fiscal year 1999 on this initiative.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST--APPROACH

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request was constructed from the bottom
    up with every line-item examined in detail. Program managers were
    required to justify their requests at ``hearings'' held in my
    conference room. The result, we believe, is a more thoughtful and
    rational budget.
        We view the budget as an active management tool to help us achieve
    our broader financial and operating goals. To that end, we have begun
    implementation of a formal monthly Financial and Operating Report. This
    report analyzes our actual financial performance against the budget and
    monitors staffing levels, status of major projects, procurement
    contracts and operating data. This report is formally reviewed with
    directors and managers on an ongoing basis to ensure accountability and
    the efficient use of our resources.
        In order to help us understand and manage our cost structure and
    our operations, we divided the budget into four distinct types of
    costs: General Operations and Maintenance, Mandated Allowances &
    Allotments, Technology Capital Investment and Nondiscretionary Items.
    Each of these structures has a different goal. For example, the long
    term goal is to reduce General Operations and Maintenance Expenses
    because we have the most control and flexibility over that. For fiscal
    year 2001, we achieved that goal by reducing General Operations &
    Maintenance Expenses by 2.4 percent and 32 FTEs.
        Our Budget Request reflects the needs of our Senate customers.
    Members of the Senate, individually and collectively, have made it
    clear to me that they require a modern technological infrastructure to
    support the operations of their offices. They have requested additional
    network capacity in Washington, D.C. and the state offices, an improved
    messaging infrastructure, enhanced information systems and physical
    security, nationwide paging capability, integration of Internet e-mail
    with the Correspondence Management Systems, and office productivity
    tools. Our Budget Request includes funding for these and other
    initiatives to satisfy the Senate's requirements.
        Many of the same items found in our Technology Capital Investment
    request have already or are currently being implemented by the private
    sector and we are in the position of either keeping up or falling
    further behind. For example, large television stations in major markets
    have already converted to digital technology to comply with the Federal
    Communications Commission mandate. Large firms are installing advanced
    voice messaging systems that can be tied to e-mail. This allows voice
    mail to be converted to text and sent to desktop or notebook computers
    for editing, printing and archiving. Most large firms have already
    upgraded their data networks to provide a higher bandwidth capacity at
    each employee's work station. Large firms are saving significant
    amounts of money by upgrading their data centers to automate many of
    the manual operations so they may be staffed with fewer people. We must
    make these and other Technology Capital Investments now or our
    technology infrastructure will rapidly become obsolete.

                                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST--DETAILS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           TOTALS               Variance fiscal year
                                                             ---------------------------------  2001 vs. fiscal year
                                                                                                        2000
                                                                Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal  ----------------------
                                                              year 1999  year 2000  year 2001               Percent
                                                                actual     budget    request     Amount      Incr/
                                                                                                             (Decr)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Operations & Maintenance........................    $52,672    $54,655    $53,354    ($1,301)       -2.4
    Mandated Allowances & Allotments........................     36,422     36,557     47,372     10,815        29.6
    Technology Capital Investment...........................      8,451      6,860     31,124     24,264       353.7
    Nondiscretionary Items..................................      4,678      2,983      4,719      1,736        58.2
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.............................................    102,223    101,055    136,569     35,514        35.1
                                                             =======================================================
    Staffing................................................        780        787        755        (32)       -4.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The total budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $136,569,000, up
    $35,514,000 or 35.1 percent from fiscal year 2000, primarily due to
    increased Technology Capital Investment and required expansion of
    services in support of the Senate. General Operations and Maintenance
    for existing services will decline by $1,301,000 or 2.4 percent due to
    operational efficiencies and reduced staffing. Full-time equivalents
    (FTE's) will decrease by 32 to 755. Mandated Allowances and Allotments
    will increase by 29.6 percent and Nondiscretionary Items will increase
    by 58.2 percent.
        To better manage and focus our budget on our mission and strategic
    priorities, we present our budget in four expenditure categories:
    General Operations and Maintenance, Mandated Allowances and Allotments,
    Technology Capital Investment and Nondiscretionary Items.

                       GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        General Operations and Maintenance will decline by $1,301,000 or
    2.4 percent to $53,354,000 primarily due to a $1,671,000 or 8.2 percent
    decline in expenses that will be partially offset by a $370,000 or 1.1
    percent increase in salaries. Expenses will decline primarily due to
    the completion of the Y2K remediation project, a reduction in radio and
    paging systems maintenance, and efforts to increase productivity
    levels. Salaries will be held to an increase of 1.1 percent due to a
    reduction of 32 FTE's via attrition offset by funding for COLA and
    administrative payroll adjustments for existing staff.

                       MANDATED ALLOWANCES AND ALLOTMENTS

        Mandated Allowances and Allotments of computers, mail systems and
    state offices will increase by $10,815,000 or 29.6 percent to
    $47,372,000 to implement a more frequent replacement cycle for PCs,
    upgrade the correspondence management systems to browser-based
    versions, and improve security in state offices. These enhancements
    must be made to meet the needs of the Senate.
        Allocations for in-office computer equipment will increase by
    $3,004,000 or 42 percent to $10,080,000 to fund a more frequent
    replacement cycle and growing requirements for additional office
    automation products. The replacement cycle will be shortened from once
    every four years (1.5 times per term) to once every three years (twice
    per term). This must be implemented to keep in step with the
    requirements of the Senate and the current life cycle of the equipment.
    As a result, the Member Computer Services Fund (CSF) allocation will
    increase by $2,200,000 or 46 percent to $7,000,000; the Committee
    allocation by $437,000 or 35 percent to $1,7000,000; the Officers
    allocation by $238,000 or 36 percent to $900,000; the Leadership
    allocation by $78,000 or 32 percent to $320,000; and other allocations
    by $51,000 to $160,000.
        Member mail systems allocations will increase to $5,620,000 to fund
    a migration from Windows-based correspondence management systems to
    more functionally advanced browser-based systems and an increase in
    maintenance costs associated with the browser-based systems. The budget
    request also reflects election year expenses required to accommodate
    newly elected Members as well as returning Members of the class of 2001
    who need to upgrade their systems to keep them modern.
        State office allocations will increase by $2,478,000 or 19 percent
    to $15,485,000 to provide for critical security enhancements in state
    offices ($1,744,000) and for increases in square footage and furniture
    allowances ($734,000). The increases in state office square footage and
    furniture allowances were authorized by Public Law 106-57 (Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000).

                         TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL INVESTMENT

        Technology Capital Investment will increase by $24,264,000 or 353.7
    percent to $31,124,000 to support strategic projects to ensure that the
    Senate has a modern computing and communications infrastructure. Each
    of these investment projects is focused on providing critical services
    and reflects the direction of the business community. A table
    summarizing these investments is presented below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal Year                   Actual Cost as
                      Technology Capital Investment                     2001 Budget     Total Cost     of 1/31/2000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Recording Studio Digital Technology......................      $7,289,000     $25,248,000  ..............
    Communications Infrastructure...................................       5,160,000      18,714,000      $9,265,000
    Electronic Printing and Document Archiving......................       5,114,000       5,114,000  ..............
    Information Security............................................       3,639,000       3,695,000           6,000
    Messaging Infrastructure and Windows 2000.......................       3,256,000       7,864,000         483,000
    Voice and Paging Infrastructure.................................       2,879,000       8,240,000       2,892,000
    Office Productivity Tools.......................................       1,745,000       1,924,000          54,000
    Enterprise Computer Operations..................................         692,000         692,000  ..............
    IT Requirements.................................................         475,000       1,050,000          25,000
    Internet E-mail Processing......................................         275,000       1,978,000       1,378,000
    Internet Video and Audio........................................         175,000         404,000         104,000
    Other Projects..................................................         425,000         425,000  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................      31,124,000      75,348,000      14,207,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate Recording Studio Digital Technology project, with a
    fiscal year 2001 budget of $7,289,000, is a five year project to
    migrate Senate broadcasts of floor proceedings, committee hearings and
    the recording studio from analog to digital technology. Fiscal year
    2001 is the first year of the project and the total cost over the life
    of the project is estimated to be nearly $25,248,000.
        Digital technology will allow for the delivery of higher picture
    quality and CD-quality sound that will enable the Senate floor
    proceedings to be distributed in high definition television (HDTV) with
    motion-picture clarity and resolution. It will enable the Senate to
    distribute its television signals in a digital format that broadcasters
    are migrating to as required by the Federal Communications Commission.
    A new audio/video/text Intranet browser will enable new end-to-end
    services to be provided to members and other stakeholders, including
    the ability to search, edit (or clip), disseminate, and archive videos
    in near real-time from their desktop workstations via the upgraded
    Senate data network. Digital video can be stored on local area network
    servers for search and retrieval and transmission by the Recording
    Studio to the Library of Congress and the National Archives, thus
    eliminating the purchase, storage and shipping of numerous video
    cassettes.
        The five year migration plan will start with the conversion of
    Senate Television to HDTV and full installation of the audio/video/text
    Intranet browsing system. The second year will focus on the studio and
    the first of three phases of the centralized control room facility.
    This phase will enable the studio to meet the requirements of the
    Senate for supporting committee broadcasts and multimedia. The third
    year will be to convert the radio operation to digital technology and
    complete phase two of the centralized control room facility. The fourth
    year will be for the final phase of the centralized control room
    deployment and the design and purchase of equipment for the studio
    control rooms and core facility. The fifth year will be for the
    installation of the studio control rooms and core facility.
        The Communications Infrastructure project, with a fiscal year 2001
    budget request of $5,160,000, consists of several critical multi-year
    initiatives. The initiatives will upgrade the wiring in the Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, purchase switches to replace routers, upgrade
    the bandwidth in the state offices and upgrade the Senate Fiber Network
    firewall and Internet service providers (ISPs) in Washington, D.C. We
    must make this Technology Capital Investment to enable our data network
    to process the higher expected volumes of data in the future.
        The Dirksen infrastructure renovation initiative is part of a
    larger project under the Architect of the Capitol to replace the
    mechanical system infrastructure of the Senate Office Buildings. The
    Sergeant at Arms' portion of the project is to upgrade the mission-
    critical telecommunications wiring infrastructure in the buildings with
    modern category five copper and fiber optical cable to support all
    current and anticipated future communications requirements with state
    of the art infrastructure. In fiscal year 2001, $1,100,000 is requested
    to perform rewiring of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. This amount
    is consistent with the amount expended in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
    year 2000, and is based on the Architect's current schedule. Some
    additional funding may be required in fiscal year 2002 to complete the
    Dirksen renovation. The estimated total funding for the Sergeant at
    Arms' portion of this project is $3,410,000.
        The network upgrade initiative will increase network capacity to
    the desktop in Washington, D.C. from the current shared 10 Megabits per
    second (Mbps) to a dedicated 10 Mbps or 100 Mbps, as needed. It will
    also double the bandwidth of the ``backbone'' to 1 Gigabit in fiscal
    year 2001. This will enable the network to accommodate the expected
    volume of data from the convergence of voice, data and video flowing
    through the Internet, World Wide Web (including Web-based applications)
    and e-mail. This initiative will fund the purchase of high speed
    switches to replace the current network of routers and hubs. There is
    $360,000 requested in fiscal year 2001 for the network upgrade which is
    expected to be completed in the same year.
        The wide area network for state offices initiative will increase
    the capacity of the local area network bandwidths within the 400 state
    offices to as much as 500 Kilobits per second, as needed. State offices
    currently have access to a relatively modest bandwidth of 56 Kbps that
    must be shared by all users in an office and must be expanded. The
    narrow bandwidth compounded by the multiple user architecture slows
    network performance considerably. There is $2,660,000 requested in
    fiscal year 2001 to buy and install the necessary equipment to increase
    the bandwidth by a factor of 10.
        The data network engineering initiative will install firewalls for
    the Senate Fiber Network and upgrade the reliability, transmission
    speed and capacity of the Internet service providers. The fiscal year
    2001 budget request is $1,040,000.
        The Electronic Printing and Document Archiving projects, with a
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of $5,114,000, consist of initiatives
    to create an electronic printing network that will connect Senate PCs
    to the Printing & Graphics' copy centers; replace offset presses with
    electronic digital presses; replace the obsolete binding machine; and
    enhance document archiving capability with document imaging equipment
    that could produce CD-ROMs or DVDs.
        The objective of the electronic printing network is to connect
    Senate PC's to the copiers in the various Printing and Graphics copy
    centers so that Senate staff will be able to send electronic files
    directly to the copiers much as they send documents to in-office
    printers. Currently, most copiers do not have networking capabilities
    and original hard copy documents must be physically delivered to the
    copy centers for duplication. There is limited networking capability in
    the main copy center and none in the remote centers, a condition that
    must be relieved. This project will create a modern high speed network
    between all copy centers and Senate desktop workstations by connecting
    the equipment to the Senate Data Communications Network, thus reducing
    labor requirements throughout the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms.
    Digital electronic printers will replace copiers and enable all
    ``copies'' to be laser originals, eliminating the normal degradation
    associated with photocopy technology. The digital printers will have
    other advanced automated features that will improve quality and
    efficiency, and reduce turnaround time. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request is $2,164,000 and the project would be completed in the same
    year.
        An upgrade to the graphics (chart production) computers is also
    included in the electronic printing network initiative. This will
    replace five year old equipment that does not have enough disk space or
    memory to handle the demand for charts that are being requested today.
    This equipment must be replaced immediately. The new equipment will
    speed up the chart making process and thus improve turnaround time.
        The digital printing press initiative will replace the offset web
    presses with multicolor digital presses. The digital presses will save
    labor and materials and improve turnaround time by eliminating much of
    the pre-press work, such as making and developing negatives and plates,
    and the use of chemicals. Instead, documents will be sent directly to
    the presses from a PC, similar to the way Senate employees send
    documents from their PC to their local printer. The digital presses
    will be more flexible in their use of paper and color and more reliable
    because the process will be electronic rather than mechanical. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for the digital presses is $500,000 and
    the project will be completed in that year.
        The binding equipment upgrade initiative will acquire a new soft-
    cover book binding machine to replace nine year old equipment. This
    machine produces ``perfect binding'', i.e., flat sided spines that are
    glued to a paperback cover. The current machine cannot handle the
    volume of work required and has book thickness and other limitations
    that do not enable it to accommodate many requests. In addition, some
    parts are no longer available and the maintenance is very expensive.
    This equipment must be replaced as soon as possible. The alternative to
    perfect binding is to fold and staple (``saddle stitch'') the document,
    which is neither practical nor professional looking for large
    documents. The budget request for this initiative is $620,000 in fiscal
    year 2001 and will be completed by September 2001.
        The document imaging initiative will acquire electronic scanning
    and optical character recognition equipment to archive hard copy Senate
    documents. This technology will provide critical enhancements that
    existing microfilm technology does not offer. The new technology will
    produce searchable and editable CDs that Senate staff can use on their
    desktop PCs and eliminate the need to go to a microfilm reader away
    from their desks. Documents on microfilm must be searched sequentially,
    like an audio or video cassette, rather than by direct access that CDs
    allow. In addition, the CDs have a storage capacity that is three times
    greater than microfilm and take up one-fifth of the physical space of
    microfilm cartridges. The microfilm readers in the Senate could be
    eventually eliminated. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for this
    project is $1,800,000 and will be implemented by September 2001.
    Maintenance will be approximately $30,000 per year.
        The Information Security project, with a fiscal year 2001 budget
    request of $3,639,000, will plan, test and acquire devices to tighten
    access to Senate computer workstations and servers. Currently, the
    primary means of secure access to Senate computer systems is through
    the use of passwords and Secure ID's (for dial-up access). Two separate
    approaches are being taken: enhanced user identification and
    authentication (I&A) through the use of smartcards (such as Secure
    ID's) or biometric devices, and the establishment of a public key
    infrastructure (PKI) to enable the encryption, validation and
    verification of documents transmitted electronically. We must enhance
    our information security infrastructure to prevent break-ins and
    possible loss of or corruption of information.
        In fiscal year 2001, $75,000 is requested for test equipment and
    services to develop requirements, select a strategy, and plan the
    deployment. There is $1,200,000 for the acquisition of the I&A devices,
    and $1,800,000 for servers, workstations, and software for the PKI
    infrastructure. Examples of biometric devices include fingerprint
    readers and retina scanners. The project will take about two years to
    complete.
        In fiscal year 2001, there is $564,000 requested to develop a
    security architecture and strategy for ensuring that the Senate network
    and information systems are protected from internal or external
    intrusion. Tools will be acquired to enhance intrusion detection,
    threat emergency response, and counter measure initiatives.
        The Messaging Infrastructure and Microsoft Windows 2000 projects,
    with a fiscal year 2001 budget of $3,256,000, will upgrade our current
    electronic messaging system to Microsoft Exchange 2000. This will lay
    the foundation for an upgrade of the Senate's Microsoft Windows 98
    (workstation)/Windows NT 4.0 (server) operating system to Windows 2000.
    The projects are estimated to be finished in fiscal year 2002. It is
    worth noting that our current messaging infrastructure software is
    being phased out by the vendor and must be replaced.
        The Microsoft Exchange 2000 messaging infrastructure is a modern,
    enterprise-class system with functionality which goes well beyond
    electronic mail. This architecture supports enterprise-wide
    calendaring, scheduling, task tracking, workflow, and work
    collaboration. This is a continuation of a project started in fiscal
    year 1999.
        During fiscal year 1999, phase 1 of the Messaging Infrastructure
    project was executed. In this phase, the systems requirements were
    determined and analyzed, alternative system architectures were
    developed and assessed, and alternative products were evaluated.
    Microsoft Exchange was selected as the foundation for the Senate's new
    messaging infrastructure. During fiscal year 2000, implementation was
    begun. Funding is included in this budget to complete implementation of
    Microsoft Exchange 2000 throughout the Senate.
        The Windows 2000 operating system will offer improved security,
    reliability, stability and functionality. Servers and workstations will
    use the same software and will be better integrated, unlike Microsoft's
    current architecture of Windows 98/Windows NT. Windows 2000 will
    feature technology to allow it to be integrated with the Microsoft
    Exchange messaging system. In fiscal year 2000, test equipment hardware
    and software will be acquired to begin implementing Windows 2000. We
    expect that deployment will be completed in fiscal year 2002. Funding
    is included in fiscal year 2001 for licenses for all workstations and
    servers and for installation Senate-wide.
        The Voice and Paging Infrastructure project, with a fiscal year
    2001 budget of $2,879,000, consists of several initiatives to upgrade
    the main Senate telephone switch, the voice messaging system and paging
    system. This project also includes a pilot project for nationwide
    paging.
        The voice and RF systems initiative will upgrade the software of
    the 15 year old main telephone switch so it can accommodate new
    multimedia services. Although the switch has been incrementally
    upgraded for hardware and annually for software, it has reached its
    technological limit and must be replaced. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request of the upgrade is $1,000,000 and will be completed in fiscal
    year 2002.
        The voice messaging system will be replaced because of age,
    additional required functionality, greater capacity and
    interoperability with other communications and information systems. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request is $1,000,000 and the project will be
    completed in fiscal year 2001. The current mission essential system
    does not meet the Senate's requirements and must be replaced.
        The Senate's Washington, DC paging system transmitter
    infrastructure will be replaced to improve reliability and
    functionality. The new transmitter will include a microwave broadcast
    facility for simulcast capability. In fiscal year 1999, the paging
    system terminals and desktop interfaces were replaced to make them Y2K
    compliant. In fiscal year 2000, the transmitter's infrastructure is
    being upgraded to extend its life by two years and increase its
    transmitting radius from 35 to 50 miles from the Capitol. The Senate
    operates its own private paging system to ensure security, flexibility
    and reliability. There is $379,000 requested for this initiative.
        In fiscal year 2001, a nationwide paging service pilot project will
    be conducted to determine the best approach to implement this service.
    Nationwide paging cannot be provided with the current privatized system
    because of cost and licensing issues. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for the pilot project is $500,000. Nationwide paging is a
    critical new service required by the Senate.
        The Office Productivity Tools project, with a fiscal year 2001
    budget request of $1,745,000, consists of two initiatives to develop
    Web-based IT tools and applications to help the Senate with its
    personnel, financial, legislative, and press operations. This project
    is critical to the efficiency of the Senate.
        The electronic document management system (EDMS) will provide the
    Senate with an electronic document management system for storing,
    organizing, and retrieving electronic, hard copy, and multimedia
    documents. This capability will make information more immediately
    accessible to Senate staff; reduce labor costs of storing, organizing,
    and retrieving information; and provide a mechanism for archiving
    historical material. There is $1,620,000 requested in fiscal year 2001
    for this initiative to acquire the hardware and software for the
    Senate. Deployment will begin in fiscal year 2001 and be completed in
    fiscal year 2002.
        The electronic workflows technologies initiative will support the
    acquisition of hardware, and software to develop the requirements and
    begin implementation of the tools. There is $125,000 requested in
    fiscal year 2001 for this initiative and is ongoing.
        The Enterprise Computer Operations project, with a fiscal year 2001
    budget request of $692,000, consists of several initiatives to upgrade
    the mainframe computer and enterprise servers. The initiatives are to
    purchase new mainframe tape drives to double capacity, purchase a
    multifunctional console to monitor the mainframe and 40 servers
    simultaneously, acquire mass storage to be shared by the mainframe and
    enterprise servers, acquire equipment to automate the tape handling
    function, and develop a disaster recovery plan for the enterprise
    servers. This project is critical to the efficiency and effectiveness
    our Enterprise operations.
        The new mainframe tape drives initiative will increase the number
    of tracks from 18 to 36. The benefits include increased storage
    capacity, faster read/write of data, reduced number of tapes that must
    be mounted and dismounted, reduced tape usage and offsite storage
    expenses, and increased reliability. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request is $120,000 and the installation will be completed then.
        The multifunctional command console initiative will allow the
    Enterprise Operations staff to centralize monitoring functions for all
    40 enterprise servers and the mainframe computer system. The new
    console monitor will support the viewing of multiple systems from one
    location, which will result in more efficient staff utilization, and an
    improved ability to manage network and systems performance. In fiscal
    year 2001, $70,000 is requested for this initiative, which will be
    completed then.
        The advanced mass storage network initiative will enable the
    sharing of mass storage between the mainframe computer and the 40
    enterprise servers. Through shared storage, data may be moved between
    systems more easily, which will reduce storage costs and simplify
    storage management activities. Currently, each enterprise server
    requires staff to configure and manage the mass storage attached to it.
    If data must be moved between servers--such as in a system backup--
    staff must often perform formatting or conversion operations to
    facilitate the exchange of data. This operation can be reduced with the
    sharing of mass storage. This initiative is also necessary to
    accommodate the increased number of servers that are projected in the
    future. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for this initiative is
    $112,000 and it will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
        The auto tape library (ATL) will automate some of the tape handling
    functions by automatically mounting, loading, unloading, dismounting
    and filing tapes used by various applications and in maintenance
    procedures, such as tape backups. An automated tape library houses its
    own input and output tapes, and is designed to run unattended. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request is $250,000 and the initiative will be
    completed in fiscal year 2002.
        The enterprise-server disaster recovery plan initiative will
    develop a plan to quickly restore the functionality of enterprise-level
    servers with mission critical applications in the event of a
    disruption. During the past two years, many of the Senate's mission-
    critical applications have migrated from the mainframe computer to
    enterprise-level servers. The current disaster recovery plan and
    support contract does not encompass enterprise-level systems. The
    enterprise server plan will complement and extend the disaster recovery
    plan for the mainframe system. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is
    $140,000.
        The IT Requirements project will fund the requirements study for
    future technology initiatives. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is
    for $475,000.
        The Internet E-Mail Processing project, with a fiscal year 2001
    budget request of $275,000, consists of two initiatives to upgrade the
    Internet e-mail processing system. The initiatives will be to deploy
    the Echomail e-mail filtering system in the Senate and refine the
    acceptance/rejection criteria; and then feed the messages to the
    correspondence management systems (CMS) for long term archiving and
    integration with hard copy constituent mail. This project is critical
    to the Senate's ability to respond to constituent e-mail in a timely
    manner.
        The first initiative, Internet E-Mail Processing, began in fiscal
    year 1999 when the servers and software for the Echomail product were
    installed in the Enterprise Operations Data Center. In fiscal year 2000
    a pilot project is being conducted in member offices to assess the
    performance of the system and refine the installation procedures. In
    fiscal year 2001, this product will be deployed Senate-wide. The fiscal
    year 2001 budget request for the initiative is $125,000. The second
    initiative, Internet E-Mail CMS Integration, will ensure that Internet
    e-mail can be accepted by the CMS. The fiscal year 2001 budget request
    for this initiative is $150,000. The two initiatives will be completed
    in fiscal year 2001.
        The Internet Video and Audio project, with a fiscal year 2001
    budget request of $175,000, consists of videoconferencing and streaming
    media initiatives. Videoconferencing allows live two-way audio and
    video transmission from a desktop workstation; streaming media are pre-
    recorded audio and video that are sent from desktop workstations to
    external consumers.
        The videoconferencing initiative will expand the current pilot
    project, which began in fiscal year 1999. During fiscal year 2001,
    additional desktop videoconferencing equipment will be deployed to
    selected Senate workstations. The capacity of the Meeting Point
    videoconferencing servers will also be increased. At the conclusion of
    the pilot project, a decision will be made regarding full deployment of
    videoconferencing starting in fiscal year 2002. Full deployment of
    videoconferencing will be contingent on the upgrade of the data
    communications network to a dedicated 10 Mbps at the workstation. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for the pilot is $100,000 and it will
    be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001.
        The streaming media infrastructure initiative will continue the
    current pilot project which began in fiscal year 1999. This service
    will enable the Senate to send video and audio from its desktop
    workstations. The existing streaming media equipment will be enhanced
    and updated. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the pilot is
    $75,000 and will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001.
        There are several Other Projects in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
    They are: a software upgrade to the mail sorter to process constituent
    response mail at the lowest postal rates, an upgrade of the newswire
    platform to replace a product that has been discontinued by the vendor,
    the acquisition of a Web-based budget system to replace the current
    system of spreadsheets, and the installation of video monitors in the
    Parking Office to facilitate improved parking lot management.
        The mail sorter upgrade will consist of the purchase of a software
    package called Sabre and a magnetic address reader. Sabre is a
    software-based optical character address recognition system that
    identifies an envelope's outgoing address, selects lowest available
    postage rate based on the volume being sent to the destination, and bar
    codes it. Outgoing mail is then sorted by zip code, bundled and mailed
    at a bulk rate. The software will be able to recognize a wider range of
    fonts and sort this mail for discounts. Records for the first quarter
    of fiscal year 2000 indicate that 20 percent of the constituent mail
    processed on the mail sorter was sent out at single piece rates, 33
    cents. By using the new reader, the postage could be reduced to at
    least 23.5 cents. This translates to a potential annual savings of
    $99,000. The Sabre software would also reduce the sorting time and
    labor because fewer letters will be rejected, thus avoiding resorting.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the sorter upgrade is $100,000
    and it will pay for itself in cost savings in the first year. The
    initiative will be completed in fiscal year 2001.
        The newswire platform replacement initiative will replace the
    current platform, NewsEdge Insight 4.1, because it has reached the end
    of its service life and will no longer be supported by the vendor. The
    next version, Insight 5.0, will not meet the Senate's news research
    requirements and will not interoperate with other Senate systems. It
    will also require extensive customization to deploy. The fiscal year
    2001 budget request includes $100,000 to fund the initial steps in
    replacing the NewsEdge platform.
        The budget preparation system initiative will replace the existing
    network of more than 100 spreadsheets with a Web-based centralized
    database structure enabling remote access for budget preparation,
    consolidation, validation, analysis, review and electronic approval.
    The system will improve accuracy and efficiency by eliminating the
    transmission of data files via e-mail and the constant reconstruction
    of formulas and formats when users accidentally change or override the
    templates. The system will also allow for better control and validation
    of budget data, allow for better analysis, classification and reporting
    using database tools; enable comparisons with prior year actual
    results; and allow for better information security. There is $150,000
    requested in fiscal year 2001 for this initiative which will be
    completed within that fiscal year.
        The parking video monitors initiative will provide video monitors
    in the Parking Office to supplement the U.S. Capitol Police video
    surveillance system to facilitate improved parking lot management,
    security, and safety. There is $75,000 requested in fiscal year 2001
    for this initiative.

                             NONDISCRETIONARY ITEMS

        Non-discretionary items will increase by $1,736,000 or 58.2 percent
    to $4,719,000. These items consist of Senate-wide legislative,
    financial and public information initiatives that are managed by non-
    Sergeant at Arms entities but funded by the SAA. The increase is due to
    follow-on projects for the Legislative Information System/Document
    Management System ($789,000), operational support for the Financial
    Management Information System ($495,000), and development of a Web
    reporting capability for the payroll system ($210,000). Also included
    is a $177,000 increase in the Capitol operators salary budget for two
    new operators and a manager. The Capitol Operator Exchange is managed
    jointly by the Senate and House.
        Mr. Chairman, that completes my formal submission to the
    Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I look
    forward to working with you and other members of the Subcommittee to
    develop a budget that will best serve the needs of the Senate.
                                     ______

                Biographical Sketch of Sarah Elizabeth McAlhany

        Elizabeth McAlhany was appointed as the Sergeant at Arms'
    Administrative Assistant March 1, 2000.
        From June 1997 to March 2000, Ms. McAlhany was the Director of
    Customer Relations for the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms. The
    Customer Relations Department's mission was to ensure that all Sergeant
    at Arms services are provided to the Senate in a manner that is
    consistent with the SAA's high service standards. These services
    included researching and fulfilling the information technology needs of
    the Senate offices.
        Ms. McAlhany has also served as both an Assistant Director and the
    Acting Director of the Senate Computer Center, where she was
    responsible for the overall operational management responsibilities,
    including planning, organizing, directing and controlling of all its
    personnel, budget, and program activities. Responsibilities also
    included managing the Education and Support Services Division of the
    Computer Center which provided Senate staff with comprehensive training
    and support for all the Senate-approved computer systems.
        During the mid-1980's, Ms. McAlhany worked as the Special Assistant
    for Information Systems for Secretaries of the Senate, the Honorable
    JoAnne L. Coe and the Honorable Walter J. Stewart. In this job, Ms.
    McAlhany was responsible for coordinating all the automation activities
    for the twenty offices under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
    Senate.
        In January 1977, Ms. McAlhany started her Senate career as a staff
    assistant for the Honorable John C. Danforth, United States Senator
    from Missouri. She was responsible for maintaining the automated files
    for the constituent records within the office and for selected casework
    initiation and follow-up.
        Ms. McAlhany has been employed in the Senate since 1977 in various
    positions that utilized her knowledge of information technology
    systems, as well as her knowledge of the U.S. Senate. She has over
    twenty years of management experience within the Senate. Originally
    from Missouri, Ms. McAlhany is a graduate of the University of Arkansas
    with a degree in English and did graduate studies in Communications at
    the American University in Washington, D.C.

        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you very much.
        I agree absolutely that it is important that Government
    gets it and has the latest and best technology to deal with the
    rest of the world. You remind me of an old experience now, but
    it struck me at the time and it has stuck with me ever since.
    At one point in my career I was hired as a consultant to NASA.
    This was in the beginning of the Reagan Administration and I
    was very excited about going to the world's absolute number one
    top technology outfit, and was a little distressed when I found
    out they had dial telephones. They had still not gone to the
    touchtone telephone at NASA and there was a touchtone
    everyplace else in the world. But they said for budget
    considerations they still have dial telephones at NASA. It kind
    of took the sheen off of the image of that particular agency.
        Mr. Ziglar. Good first impression.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.

                                 5-YEAR BUDGET

        I am delighted to see your operations and maintenance
    numbers begin to come down. As you do your 5-year budget, could
    you share with us any projections as to the return on the
    investment in technology? And is that number going to continue
    to come down because the technology gets better, or are you
    going to justify the technology investment on the statement
    that, well, gee, we got to do it, but we are not going to be
    able to get any financial implication of it later on?
        Mr. Ziglar. Well, we certainly will do that analysis. As
    you know, it is an iterative kind of thing, so you are never
    quite sure where you draw the line. But hopefully we will
    continue to do things in the personnel area that will
    incentivize our folks to do a better job and a more productive
    job. But in order for them to do that, we need the technology
    to allow them to do it.
        So we for sure will make those projections and that
    analysis, absolutely.
        Senator Bennett. You are right, you have no choice on the
    digital technology. This is not the Commerce Committee, but the
    costs you are facing are similar to the costs that every
    broadcast facility in the country is facing, and there are some
    members of the Commerce Committee who say we are giving away
    spectrum and allowing these people to move to the digital
    spectrum without paying for it and it is worth billions. They
    do not recognize it is going to cost billions to make the
    transition, and if we do not show a degree of understanding of
    that we will be in real trouble.
        So you do not have to worry about purchasing spectrum
    because you are not in the broadcast business, but some of
    those who are are facing exactly the same costs you are
    focusing on here, plus the requirement or at least request on
    the part of some Members of our body who insist, well, they
    should pay for the spectrum, too, so they are paying for the
    upgrade twice.
        Mr. Ziglar. Well, we know ultimately who pays for that.

                   ELECTRONIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENT ARCHIVING

        Senator Bennett. Sure, sure. There is no free lunch.
        I appreciate your prioritizing these. The numbers below the
    line are, by comparison with those above the line, relatively
    small numbers. But you have got arguably your second largest
    number up there, or tied with, electronic printing and document
    archiving. Do you want to talk about that as to why that is
    below the line and exactly what that involves? I did not catch
    that as you went through.
        What do you mean when you say ``electronic printing and
    document archiving''? Are we trying to get away from a paper
    society as soon as possible?
        Mr. Ziglar. It is important. It also has to do with the
    ability of, for example, in your office to actually put
    together a document that you are going to mass produce, for
    example, and have it go directly to our printing and graphics
    area. It would print out on a high quality machine that gives
    you a laser-quality document as opposed to taking it, putting
    it on a Xerox machine, and running it off that way. It is a
    very efficient way of printing. It saves personnel and time,
    and obviously it is one less step in the whole process.
        Document archiving again has to do with, for example in
    your own office, where you can start keeping the documents from
    your own term as a Senator electronically and organize them and
    allow you to retrieve them in a much more efficient way. So
    those are two elements of the document printing and archiving
    project.
        It is a large project that has many facets to it, and I
    have Rick Edwards here who can talk about that if you are
    interested in more detail in terms of the elements of it. But
    by and large, it is electronic storage and being able to print
    high quality documents very efficiently.
        The other thing, by the way, let me point out, is that we
    have printing presses that we use to print these documents, and
    that will alleviate some of that capital cost going forward.
    Not that we do not need them, but we will not have as much
    need.
        Senator Bennett. Well, is there any duplication between the
    equipment you supervise and that at the GPO?
        Mr. Ziglar. No, sir.
        Senator Bennett. None at all?
        Mr. Ziglar. Duplication in the sense of we could be using
    their equipment?
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Mr. Ziglar. I do not believe so. The GPO does do some
    printing for the Senate, as you know, but it is more of the
    high volume, heavy duty stuff.
        Senator Bennett. Okay. Well, I have--well, the standard
    question now. You cannot come before this committee without
    being asked this question: When will the Senate phone books be
    available?
        Mr. Ziglar. Shoot, I thought you were asking me about the
    barber shop.
        Senator Bennett. I understand the barber shop is under
    control.
        Mr. Ziglar. It is doing better. I do have a report for you
    on the barber shop, though.
        When will the telephone directory be done?
        Mr. Winn. We expect to send it to GPO either late this week
    or early next week, and it should be available to Senate
    offices the first week in April. We are delayed because we have
    had twice as many changes to the phone book this year as we
    have ever had before.
        Senator Bennett. I cannot resist telling you a story
    because you remind me of it. I have forgotten which Senator is
    responsible for this, but this is a standard story around here.
    He said: Government is like the shoe repair. You are going
    through your old clothes getting ready to decide what you are
    going to throw out and what you are going to give to Goodwill
    Industries and so on, and you come up with a claim check for a
    pair of shoes that you had completely forgotten about. It is
    2\1/2\ years old.
        So you go down to the shoe repair shop with the claim check
    to see if anything has happened and you hand it to them and
    they look at it and said: They will be ready next Tuesday.
        I wonder if we had asked this question on the 7th of March
    if we would be told that the phone books would be ready next
    week. I am sorry, that is unfair.
        That is unfair, but it is a great story. We will look
    forward to the phone books. Thank you very much for your
    efforts on that.

                         COMMERCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM

        Now, last year Senator Craig raised some concerns about the
    commercial information system and I understand your office has
    done a remarkable job of expanding that program to cover more
    Senate employees with no additional cost. I think for the
    record a few sentences about your success and performance there
    would probably be a good way to conclude the hearing.
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you asked me that
    question.
        Senator Bennett. I thought I would give you one softball
    across the middle of the plate.
        Mr. Ziglar. Because that really is one of the real success
    stories from this year. We have without any additional cost to
    Senate offices, been able to take what was a situation where
    you had to choose from a short menu of options of information
    services that you could use and get them in only one place in
    your office, to a huge menu of information services and you
    have access to all of them. And not only that, but you now have
    access to them on each desk in your office.
        This was done without any additional cost to the Senate. In
    addition, we are now supplying this service to committees at no
    cost. So it has been expansion of information sources, and in
    effect a reduction in cost to the Senate to provide them. The
    folks over at Postal Square that worked on this project did a
    great job. I would not mind having those folks work for me in
    the private sector negotiating deals with vendors, because they
    squeezed blood out of a turnip. They did a great job and I am
    real proud of them.
        I might add that Senator Craig has been very pleased with
    the result. I got a very nice letter from him, and we worked
    with his staff to make sure that his concerns were addressed.
    So I appreciate your asking the question and we are real proud
    of that.
        Senator Bennett. Very good. Thank you. We are delighted
    that the Senate directory is coming out as early as it is.
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I have to make----
        Senator Bennett. We would not want anybody to misinterpret
    my comment.
        Mr. Ziglar (continuing). One final comment. Last year you
    asked me why it was that the Majority Leader paid the same
    thing for a haircut that you did, and I have been looking into
    that this year and I want you to know that, as much as we would
    like to, we cannot cut you a deal. You are going to have to cut
    the deal with your individual barber.
        Senator Bennett. I have long since given up trying to
    understand that, but the Majority Leader is sufficiently
    blessed with follicle adornment and I am not and I will just
    have to pay tribute to him for his wisdom in choosing the genes
    that he did that got him to that situation.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Mr. Ziglar. And we appreciate the extra money in effect
    that you pay in order to support the barber shop.
        Senator Bennett. On a per hair basis----
        Mr. Ziglar. That is right.
        Senator Bennett (continuing). I guess I am subsidizing him.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Question. The Technical Capital Investment category has increased
    dramatically (353.7 percent). This appears to be quite a big jump--a
    significant increase in spending over last year. Your table on page 333
    of your testimony shows a total request of $31,124,000 for fiscal year
    2001, but the total cost for those technology capital investments you
    want is $75,348,000. The Recording Studio upgrade is a five-year
    project, and some of the other items in that list might be upgraded on
    shorter or longer cycles.
        Can you break this down for us into a more digestible form?
        Answer. Presented below is a table outlining expenditures for
    Technology Capital Investments through fiscal year 2005.

                        FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005--TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL INVESTMENT
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                        Prior  ---------------------------------------------
                       Description                      Year      2001     2002     2003     2004     2005    Total
                                                      Expenses   Budget   Budget   Budget   Budget   Budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations Division:
        Senate Recording Studio Digital Technology..  ........    7,289    4,454    4,800    4,906    3,799   25,248
        Communications Infrastructure...............    12,388    5,160    1,166  .......  .......  .......   18,714
        Electronic Printing and Document Archiving..  ........    5,114  .......  .......  .......  .......    5,114
        Information Security........................         6    3,639       50  .......  .......  .......    3,695
        Messaging Infrastructure and Windows 2000...     4,308    3,256      300  .......  .......  .......    7,864
        Voice and Paging Network Infrastructure.....     2,923    2,879    2,438  .......  .......  .......    8,240
        Office Productivity Tools...................        54    1,745      125  .......  .......  .......    1,924
        Enterprise Computer Operations..............  ........      692  .......  .......  .......  .......      692
        Internet E-mail Processing..................     1,578      275      125  .......  .......  .......    1,978
        IT Requirements.............................       100      475      475  .......  .......  .......    1,050
        Internet Video and Audio....................       104      175      125  .......  .......  .......      404
        Other Projects..............................  ........      425  .......  .......  .......  .......      425
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Operations Division.................    21,461   31,124    9,258    4,800    4,906    3,799   75,348
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Can you give us some overall idea about how much we might
    be spending in technology upgrades in the next three to five years?
        Answer. At this time we are not able to provide this kind of
    information. However, in my testimony, I did address the need for this
    information. We plan to initiate a five-year ``evergreen'' budget plan
    which we will provide to the Committee upon its completion. We expect
    to have the plan completed by the fall of 2000.
        This five year plan will enable us to manage our technology assets
    more effectively and schedule asset upgrades and replacements in a more
    predictable manner. It will also enable better long range planning for
    the appropriation cycles that the Committee must manage.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. The hearing is
    recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 21, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Abrecht, Gary L., Chief, U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Capitol Police
      Board..........................................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Anderson, Barry, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office....     9

    Becker, Herbert S., Director, Information Technology Services,
      Library of Congress............................................    51
    Bennett, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from Utah:
        Opening statements..................................1, 25, 167, 255
        Questions submitted by.......................44, 121, 219, 240, 317
    Billington, James H., Ph.D., Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
    Brown, Richard, Controller, General Accounting Office............   225
    Buckley, Francis J., Jr., Superintendent of Documents, Government
      Printing Office................................................   153

    Campbell, Laura, Director, National Digital Library, Library of
      Congress.......................................................    51
    Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
      statement of...................................................    27
    Cook, Charles, Congressional Printing Management Officer,
      Government Printing Office.....................................   153
    Crippen, Dan L., Director, Congressional Budget Office...........     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Cylke, Frank Kurt, Director, National Library Service for the
      Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress..........    51

    DiMario, Michael, the Public Printer, Government Printing Office.   153
        Prepared statement...........................................   153
    Dodaro, Gene, Chief Operating Officer, General Accounting Office.   225
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
        Prepared statements.................................4, 26, 167, 256
        Questions submitted by.............45, 125, 164, 220, 240, 252, 342

    Green, Gary, General Counsel, Office of Compliance...............   243
    Guy, William M., Budget Officer, Government Printing Office......   153

    Hantman, Alan M., AIA:
        Architect of the Capitol.....................................   167
            Prepared statement.......................................   171
        Capitol Police Board.........................................    25
    Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Mission Support Officer, General
      Accounting Of-
      fice...........................................................   225
    Hughes-Brown, Beth, Administrative Officer, Office of Compliance.   243

    Jenkins, Jo Ann C., Chief of Staff, Office of the Librarian,
      Library of Congress............................................    51
    Lieberman, Steven M., Congressional Budget Office, biographical
      sketch.........................................................     9
    Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
      Representatives, Chairman, Capitol Police Board................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Lopez, Kenneth E., Director of Security, Library of Congress.....    51

    McAlhany, Sarah Elizabeth, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper,
      Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate,
      biographical sketch............................................   338
    Medina, Rubens, Law Librarian, Library of Congress...............    51
    Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
        Prepared statement...........................................   208
        Statement of.................................................   208
    Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
      Library of Congress............................................    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    66

    Paull, Lindy L., Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation.....   133
    Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress....    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    62

    Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation   133
        Prepared statement...........................................   134

    Saxton, Jim, Vice Chairman, Joint Economic Committee.............     1
        Letter from..................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................    51
    Silberman, Ricky, Executive Director, Office of Compliance.......   243
        Prepared statement...........................................   245
    Sisco, Hon. Gary, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate...........................   255
        Prepared statement...........................................   261
        Statement of.................................................   256
    Smith, Teresa, Director, Human Resources Services, Library of
      Congress.......................................................    51
    Stephens, James, Deputy Executive Director for the House, Office
      of Compliance..................................................   243
    Symms, Loretta, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant
      at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................   323

    Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library
      of Con-
      gress..........................................................    51
    Talkin, Pamela, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Office
      of Compliance..................................................   243

    Walker, David, Comptroller General, General Accounting Office....   225
        Prepared statement...........................................   228
    Washington, Linda, Director, Integrated Support Services, Library
      of Congress....................................................    51
    Webster, John D., Director, Financial Services, Library of
      Congress.......................................................    51
    Williams, Kathy A., Budget Officer, Library of Congress..........    51
    Wineman, Timothy S., Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate...........................   255
        Prepared statement...........................................   315

    Zagorin, Janet S., Chair, Standing Committee on the Law Library
      of Congress, American Bar Association, prepared statement......   129
    Zelaska, Sharon, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate...........................   255
    Ziglar, Hon. Jim:
        Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office of the Sergeant at
          Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate...........................   323
            Prepared statement.......................................   331
        Capitol Police Board.........................................    25

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                                                       Page
    Additional committee questions...................................   219
    AOC responsibilities.............................................   169
    Budget summary...................................................   172
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................................   169
    Capitol complex:
        Fire safety..................................................   216
        Stature of the...............................................   219
    Customer services................................................   172
    Dirksen Building remodeling......................................   207
    Dome restoration project.........................................   170
    Employee:
        Concerns.....................................................   210
        Safety.......................................................   215
    Financial management system......................................   214
    Fire safety, current systems.....................................   218
    Human resources..................................................   209
    Industrial psychologist..........................................   212
    Landmark buildings...............................................   217
    Life safety......................................................   172
    Personal oversight...............................................   211
    Problem resolution...............................................   213
    Security.........................................................   209
    Senate restaurants supervision...................................   211
    Y2K..............................................................   169

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    Fiscal year:
        2000 funding shortfall.......................................    11
        2001 increase................................................    12
    House computer, using the........................................    23
    Income:
        Disparate growth in..........................................    19
        Share of total in lowest group...............................    21
    Productivity:
        Growth in the economy........................................    18
        Uncertainty and the surplus..................................    18
    Salary compression, relief for...................................    11
    Staffing level, improved.........................................    11
    Workforce:
        Constraints on the economy...................................    21
        Mobility of..................................................    22
    Y2K:
        A positive outcome for the scare.............................    17
        Success......................................................    10

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    Additional committee questions...................................   240
    Capitol visitors center..........................................   238
    Challenges facing GAO............................................   231
    Committee staff, recognition of..................................   238
    Early-out authority, request for.................................   239
    Fiscal year 1999 accomplishments.................................   228
    Fiscal year 2001 budget request..................................   237
    GAO:
        Accomplishments in fiscal year 1999..........................   226
        Accountability report........................................   227
        Strategic plan...............................................   226
        Work on planned center.......................................   238
    Human capital request, highlights of.............................   227
    Information technology request...................................   227
    Initiatives underway to strengthen GAO...........................   234
    Legislation needed to help increase GAO's efficiency and
      effectiveness..................................................   236
    Y2K work:
        Praise for...................................................   225
        Summary of GAO...............................................   226

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    Additional committee questions...................................   163
    Additional issues................................................   156
    Appropriations request, fiscal year 2001.........................   154
    Budget increase..................................................   159
    Congressional printing and binding appropriation.................   154
    Digitizing of GPO................................................   158
    Facility consolidation...........................................   162
    Government Printing Office: Still better than ever...............   158
    Police...........................................................   161
    Public Printer's statement.......................................   153
    Revolving fund...................................................   155
        Losses.......................................................   162
    Salaries and expenses appropriation..............................   155
    Y2K preparedness.................................................   159

                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

    Appropriation request:
        Details of fiscal year 2001..................................   135
        Summary of fiscal year 2001..................................   135
    Budget request...................................................   133
    Federal tax system report........................................   150
    Joint Committee on Taxation:
        Anticipated workload of the for calendar year 2000...........   139
        Review of operations during calendar year 1999...............   137
    Workload.........................................................   133

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

    Budget request and committee research, fiscal year 2001..........     2
    Selected JEC publications on the IMF and monetary policy.........     7

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    Additional committee questions...................................   120
    Adoption: Characteristics of Women Interested in Adopting a
      Child--August 5, 1998..........................................    75
    Budget request...................................................    51
        Digital futures..............................................    52
    Collections, preservation and storage of the.....................    58
    Computer security................................................    56
    Congressional:
        Environment, changes in the..................................    68
        Judicial limitations on power................................    68
        Tenure.......................................................    69
    Congressional Research Service...................................   115
        Budget request...............................................    66
        Change and continuity........................................    66
        Publication of products......................................    72
    Copyright Office.................................................    59
    Digital futures initiative (National On-Line Library)............    55
    Information technology...........................................    69
    Integrated library system........................................   111
        Bill arrearages..............................................   114
    James Madison Building workstation modernization project.........    60
    Law Library......................................................    58
    Legislation, proposed............................................    60
    Library of Congress:
        Bicentennial.................................................    61
        Buildings and grounds........................................    60
        Security of staff, collections and facilities................    57
        Today........................................................    55
    National Digital Library.........................................    52
    National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped    59
    Profiles of recent staff hired under the CRS succession plan.....    74
    Russian Leadership Program.......................................   111
    Sex Discrimination and the United States Supreme Court: Recent
      Developments in the Law--June 29, 1999.........................    92
    Succession:
        Planning....................................................73, 120
        Program......................................................    56
    The Department of Energy's Spallation Neutron Source Project:
      Description and Issues--December 10, 1999......................   102
    Thomas homepage defacement.......................................   119

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    Additional committee questions...................................   252
    Budget request...................................................   243
    OSHA detailee....................................................   245
    Safety and the historic Capitol..................................   251

                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    Additional committee questions...................................    44
    Administrative:
        Personnel....................................................    46
        Support......................................................    46
    American-made motorcycles........................................    35
        Purchase of..................................................    44
    Annual budget....................................................    29
    Assistant Chief of Police position...............................    46
    Biohazard training...............................................    47
    Budget request...................................................    27
    Capitol Police review of selected administrative procedures......    45
    Equipment, lack of...............................................    48
    Facilities master plan...........................................    30
    Financial management.............................................    46
    Fleet expansion..................................................    38
    Jurisdiction, area of............................................    36
    Library of Congress security and maintenance.....................    45
    Manpower.........................................................    42
    Motorcycles......................................................    38
    New hires........................................................    48
    New police personnel.............................................    47
    Perimeter security improvements..................................    44
    Physical security improvements...................................    41
    Police, additional personnel.....................................    48
    Safety upgrades..................................................    39
    Staffing at building entrances...................................    48
    Training:
        Facility.....................................................    45
        Program......................................................    47

                                  U.S. SENATE

                     Office of the Secretary of the Senate

    Accounting Department............................................   293
    Accounts Payable Audit Section...................................   293
    Additional committee questions...................................   317
    Administrative Offices...........................................   283
    Bill Clerk.......................................................   270
    Budget Department................................................   294
    Budget request:
        Fiscal year 2001.............................................   257
            Presenting the...........................................   261
    Capitol visitor center.........................................260, 315
        Realizing the vision for the.................................   264
    Daily Digest.....................................................   271
    Disbursing Office................................................   283
        Financial Management.........................................   285
        Systems Administration.......................................   294
    Employee Benefits Section........................................   284
    Enrolling Clerk..................................................   272
    Executive Clerk..................................................   272
    Financial management information system..........................   257
    Financial Systems Department.....................................   294
    Front Counter--Administrative and Financial Services.............   283
    Historical Office................................................   303
    Implementing mandated systems....................................   262
    Information Systems..............................................   309
    Interparliamentary Services......................................   301
        Trips 1999...................................................   314
    Joint Office of Education and Training...........................   282
    Journal Clerk....................................................   273
    Legislative Clerk................................................   273
    Legislative departments..........................................   270
    Legislative information system...................................   259
    Maintaining and improving current and historic legislative,
      financial, and administrative services.........................   265
    Meeting personnel challenges for the future......................   263
    Office of:
        Captioning Services..........................................   279
        Conservation and Preservation................................   298
        Human Resources..............................................   295
        Printing and Document Services...............................   275
        Public Records...............................................   302
        Senate Security..............................................   299
        Secretary of the Senate fiscal year 2001 budget summary,
          apportionment schedule, and departmental annual reports....   270
        Senate Chief Counsel for Employment..........................   296
        Senate Curator...............................................   304
    Official Reporters of Debates....................................   274
    Parliamentarian..................................................   275
    Payroll Section..................................................   283
    Policy and Control Department....................................   294
    Senate:
        Gift Shop....................................................   302
        Library......................................................   295
        Page School..................................................   308
        Stationery Room..............................................   300
    Special Projects--LIS............................................   279
    Succession planning..............................................   316
    Webmaster Internet Services......................................   313

                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    Additional committee questions...................................   342
    Budget:
        Process......................................................   324
        Request......................................................   327
    Commercial information system....................................   341
    Electronic printing and document archiving.......................   340
    Fiscal year 2001 budget request--approach........................   331
    5-year budget....................................................   339
    General operations and maintenance...............................   332
    Mandated allowances and allotments...............................   332
    Nondiscretionary items...........................................   338
    Operations and maintenance.......................................   325
    Report on year 2000 compliance effort............................   331
    Technology capital investment....................................   333