[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina, Chairman
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JERRY LEWIS, California STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Elizabeth C. Dawson, Staff Assistant
________
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2003 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-975 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama NANCY PELOSI, California
JAMES T. WALSH, New York PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida ED PASTOR, Arizona
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa SAM FARR, California
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
HON. JAY EAGEN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HON. JEFF TRANDAHL, CLERK OF THE HOUSE
HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS
STEVEN McNAMARA, INSPECTOR GENERAL
GERALDINE GENNET, GENERAL COUNSEL
JOHN MILLER, LAW REVISION COUNSEL
M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
DR. JOHN EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
Opening Statement--Fiscal Year 2003 Budget
Mr. Taylor. Good morning. The Subcommittee on the
Legislative Branch will come to order. Today we begin our
hearings on the budget requests of the various agencies of the
legislative branch on their fiscal year 2003 budgets. It is our
hope to complete these hearings, the subcommittee markup, full
committee markup and floor action by the end of June. Our
Chairman has said he hopes to have all these subcommittees
completed before we break for the 4th of July.
The total appropriation request that will be considered by
the subcommittee is $2.6 billion. This is $112 million less
than the amount reflected in the President's budget request. In
accordance with committee-wide policy, the amounts requested
for accruing the cost of retirement and health benefits has
been removed from each individual budget request, therefore the
amended increase is $108.8 million, or 4.3 percent, above the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
In accordance with comity between the two Houses we will
not consider the budget of the other body. The Senate will
consider its own request. If the Senate items are included, the
total legislative branch request is going to be somewhere in
the $3.4 billion range.
With that in mind, I would like to welcome Mr. LaHood, who
is with us today, and we will have other members coming in as
we continue the hearing.
Mr. Hoyer, we just opened the committee hearings. Do you
have a comment or something to say at this time?
Mr. Hoyer. No.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Taylor. All right. We will move forward. We begin our
hearings this morning with the budget request for the House of
Representatives. The Chief Administrative Officer, assisted by
the Office of Finance, submits the House budget each year to
the Office of Management and Budget. That material is then
included in the President's budget. The House budget request
totals $949.6 million, which is $29.8 million, or about 3.2
percent over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
This request provides funding for the operations of
members' offices, committees, leadership, and the
administrative operations of the House. We want to welcome the
officers of the House today who are with us. Jeff Trandahl, the
Clerk of the House, Wilson Livingood, the Sergeant at Arms, and
Jay Eagen, the Chief Administrative Officer. We also have
Geraldine Gennet, the House General Counsel, John Miller, the
House Law Revision Counsel, M. Pope Barrow, the House
Legislative Counsel, Steve McNamara, the House Inspector
General, and Dr. John Eisold, the Attending Physician.
Before we proceed with our line of questioning, I would
like to thank the officers of the House for the highly
professional manner in which the relocation of the House
operations was completed this past year. You are to be
commended on the fine job you did to assure the continued
operations of the House of Representatives. On behalf of all
Members of the House, I would like to thank you and ask that
you pass the word on to the entire staff.
Mr. Moran has joined us. Would you like to make a comment
before we start?
Mr. Moran. No, go ahead.
Opening Statement
Mr. Taylor. I would like to have the officers recognized
and we will start with Jeff Trandahl. If you would like to make
any comments please do so. Any items that you do not wish to
comment on will be submitted for the record.
Mr. Trandahl. We were told to keep our comments brief here
this morning, so I guess I just want to start and say that what
we greatly appreciate in our office--and I want to say the
other officers--is the support of this subcommittee, especially
during the last 6 months here, which were fairly difficult and
challenging-times that none of us anticipated. And I want to
say that I feel honored and privileged not only to have worked
with the organization that I work with and its people, but I
want to recognize their extraordinary efforts. At the same time
I want to commend the subcommittee for stepping up and being of
incredible support to us during a difficult time. I want to say
I am very proud and honored to work with the gentlemen that I
work with sitting next to me because we really pulled together
and the team that was formed on a very quick, short emergency
situation definitely performed well. So thank you for letting
us appear today.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Mr. Eagen, would you like to make a
comment?
Mr. Eagen. No comments, Mr. Chairman. Our statement has
been submitted for the record.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Eagen. Mr. Livingood, any
comments you would like to make?
Mr. Livingood. My comments have been submitted for the
record, sir, but I would just like to thank the committee and I
would like to thank all of Capitol Hill, the Members, the
staff, for their commitment, their help and their caring since
9/11 and the anthrax incident on October 15th. We could not
have done the job that we have--we, our office and the Capitol
Police--without the commitment and the caring from this
committee and from other committees, and from Members and
staff, and I feel very strongly about that, sir, and I feel it
an honor and a pleasure to serve all of them.
[The prepared statements of the witnesses follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERVIEW OF MAIL OPERATIONS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Thank all of you gentlemen. This has
been a very trying time. Of course it is not over. We are in
the middle of it. All you have to do is step outside and see
that.
A lot of things are going to be done, changes to be made.
We will have a closed hearing later to examine again some of
the things that we are trying to do to make sure that we are
adequately funded and moving in the wisest direction that we
can contemplate. But I do thank all of you. It has been a tough
time and fortunately we have not sustained any real loss at the
Capitol, and that has been in large measure to your fine work.
We will proceed directly into our questions. Mr. Eagen, the
events of October 15th have caused significant changes in the
House mail operations. What have the changes been and what are
your long range plans?
Mr. Eagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be
beneficial if I put the changes in context by going back to
last fall and quickly reviewing what transpired, because what
has happened since then is directly impacted by last fall.
You recall that October 15th, a Monday, was the day that
the letter was discovered in Senator Daschle's office and the
anthrax contamination was first confirmed. On October 17th, the
leadership of the House made a decision to evacuate all the
House office buildings. That was a Wednesday. The prior Friday,
the House had actually started to quarantine its mail after
having put in place a new sampling system to check for biologic
intrusions into the House mail stream.
On the 18th, the day after the evacuation, the first House
side contamination was found at the P Street offsite X-ray
facility. And on the 21st, contamination of anthrax was
confirmed in the Ford mailroom in the Ford Building.
Over the next few weeks, as the environmental assessment
team conducted its work, additional contamination was found in
the Longworth Building and again in the Ford Building, on the
first floor.
The impact of all those contamination confirmations was
that the Ford mailroom was shut down and a decision has been
made to permanently keep it closed. It is not appropriate to
have that kind of facility in an office building where about
1,000 people work and where the House has its child care
facility.
The House also lost its X-ray capabilities, as did the
Senate, at P Street. In sum, the House lost all of its mail
processing capabilities in those couple of weeks last fall.
In addition, the Postal Service lost the Brentwood
facility, the location for the government mail processing
capability for the Metropolitan Washington Area. So what you
had happen in a couple of weeks time was the virtual
elimination of all the automation and facilities that served
not only the House and the Senate, but basically the government
sector as well.
STERILIZED MAIL
The macro impact was that the Postal Service and the House
postal operations went from having the responsibility to
deliver mail in a speedy and accurate manner to not only trying
to deliver mail in a speedy and accurate manner, but also
deliver sanitized or sterilized mail. It was a new business
mission that did not exist and never had been tried before.
We also got into the business of actually attempting to
store mail. For those weeks when the mail operation was shut
down, both within the Postal Service and here on the House
campus, our facilities and systems weren't designed to store
the mail, they were designed to push the mail through as
quickly as possible. Now you had the Postal Service attempting
to take trailer upon trailer upon trailer of mail and catalog
them and keep them in storage and figure out how to deliver
them at a later date.
The anthrax threats and other biological threats led to a
change in the whole system. On the front end, the White House
put together a task force through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy that recommended and verified irradiation, e-
beamed irradiation, as a sterilization method of the mail. That
is being done by the Postal Service in two facilities, one in
Lima, Ohio, and another one in New Jersey. That is now
shrinking down to one facility in New Jersey.
Here on the House campus, on the back end, we are doing
additional verification sampling to ensure that the
sterilization done by the Postal Service has been effective. We
have brought the mail back onto the campus in stages. It took
the Postal Service and the White House some time to determine
that irradiation was in fact the proper solution and they did
not indicate that they would be ready to use that until late
November.
We did briefings for Members' staff in late November and
the mail flow actually started in early December. Initially we
were receiving simply first class mail and what are called
flats, mail items of this size or smaller.
In January, we went into phase two through a proposal to
start receiving national courier deliveries. By ``national
couriers,'' I mean organizations like UPS and FedEx. In March,
a third phase was put into effect to start receiving Postal
Service parcels and third class mail. All of those have
different associated backlogs associated with them, depending
on how long the mail was shut off and what it requires to
undertake processing through the new systems.
What we are seeing today is that the Postal Service was
forecasting a 7-day turnaround for first class mail basically
from the date of postmark. In reality it is as much as 7 days
to 15 days on the front end. On the back end, once we receive
the mail from the Postal Service, we have been told that it
will take about 4 days for the sampling at the time to take
place. In reality, that is often taking longer when you factor
in weekend time when the labs are not open and constructing the
testing that the House needs to confirm the sterilization of
the mail.
DIGITIZATION OF THE MAIL
For the future, we are investigating a concept called
digitization of the mail, and the hope is that we would be
putting in place a pilot very soon this year to test out
whether this concept is a viable solution for the House.
Basically it would involve that off campus the mail would be
received, opened, a digital picture of the mail would be taken,
and then the mail would be transmitted to offices
electronically, so that for the most part the offices would
never actually get a hard copy of the mail.
Now there is obviously an issue involved in that. We would
have to have authority from the offices to open their mail for
them. There would have to be a separate mail stream for the
hard kinds of items that the offices need to receive that would
still have to be sterilized.
There are still many challenges facing us because we feel
that digitization may have a solution for the House not only on
the security side and sterilization side, but also economies
for offices that if digitization can be hooked into the mail
systems within the offices themselves, the correspondence
management systems, you would actually get your data directly
into your system and be able to respond to your mail more
quickly.
For the long run, I am often asked the question when are we
going to get back to normal, and I always respond and say we
are not going to get ``back'' to normal. We have to move
forward to normal. Last fall changed things irreparably. That
is almost a cliche now, and we are not going to be able to go
back to exactly the way things were last fall, and the
challenge is how do we design them to move forward to speedy
and accurate mail but also safe mail for all the House
customers.
IRRADIATED MAIL/MEDICAL COMPLAINTS
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Eisold, you have done a fine job, not only
keeping me healthy these last number of years, but you did a
fine job in attacking this problem. Could you make a comment
regarding the Postal Service irradiation of mail?
Mr. Moran. Come up to the witness table and use a
microphone.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Dr. Eisold. Although we have nicknamed the irradiated mail,
``fried mail,'' we have taken it very seriously from the start.
When people started to have complaints, we developed a
comprehensive screening protocol. We put it out to all of our
nurses and our physicians and set up a mechanism whereby
anybody who had a complaint or thought they had a complaint
that could be related to the mail could come to us and be
evaluated medically. We could get an epidemiologic history and
try to figure out what the cause of the mail complaints were.
As we marched along in that process, NIOSH also got
involved in doing a scientific study to see if there were any
toxins or substances that were uncommonly seen or had high
levels that could be detrimental to a person's health. That
study went on in parallel with us.
Another thing that went along in parallel is that, although
Mr. Eagen did not go into the details, there were some changes
in the degree to which the mail was irradiated and how it was
handled after it was irradiated. That kicked into place in
January and has been modified since that time, which is
probably why--and then I will get into some of the specifics--
when we tallied all of our numbers, they peaked in late January
and then gradually fell down to a point now where we might get
one or two complaints a week, which quite frankly may be just
background noise and has nothing to do with the mail.
Clinically speaking, what was clear was that the complaints
that people were having were absolutely legitimate and that
some people had red eyes and some people had irritation on
their hands. And as we put this together, we concluded that the
cause of the peoples' complaints was simply that some people
are allergic to by-products of the irradiation on the plastic,
dust etc. People were allergic to certain irritants that they
had on their hands or fumes that got in their eyes.
So we found it to be an allergic phenomenon and not a
significant medical problem. The complaints that we saw mainly
had to do with skin irritation and eye irritation. That clearly
has fallen off tremendously now that we have cleaner mail. When
I say cleaner mail, it is one thing to irradiate mail that is 3
months old and full of dust than to irradiate a piece of mail
that is fairly new in the system. It is also different if you
ventilate the mail in a wide open area after it has been
irradiated to get some of these toxins to flow away. So
procedurally a lot of things have happened.
MEDICAL CONCLUSION
Again, my conclusions were that the symptoms were real but
they were more of an allergic or contact dermatitis type
phenomenon and not a serious medical problem. That may be borne
out by the NIOSH study, which as I said has been going in
parallel and has just come out. They interviewed almost 400
people. They sampled many spots throughout the Capitol and
their results really did not find anything that would qualify
as an environmental contaminant that could account for any
expectation of long-term medical consequences.
So I think that it is a good news/bad news story. It was
bad news that we had some symptoms. It is good news that as we
looked at the whole situation, it has come back towards
baseline, and it appears that the attention to the problems
have helped. Certainly the plans for the future that Mr. Eagen
talks about should even make this less of a problem.
Mr. Taylor. Well, it speaks well for all the staff, your
office and the entire group of you gathered here. I imagine
this is the first urban attack of this nature and you had to
learn a lot of things that you did not know, and you have
learned a great deal about it and you have handled it very
well.
I don't know where else in the world you would go for
experience because this was probably the first major urban use
of that sort of biological disease.
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The Office of Emergency Preparedness has been established
under the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House. Mr.
Trandahl, as Chairman of the board, which oversees this office,
would you bring us up to date on its current status and what
its responsibilities will be?
Mr. Trandahl. Sure. As the subcommittee is aware, during
the supplemental last winter and December, language was
included to create an Office of Emergency Preparedness for the
House. It reports and operates beneath the Speaker and the
Minority Leader. Through the winter we advertised the creation
of a Director for that office. Seventy-four candidates were
identified. More than 20 people were interviewed in the process
and the Speaker and the Minority Leader's office selected a
candidate last month. I am pleased to say that the Director of
that office began working as of this Monday.
As far as the responsibilities of that Office go, they are
basically put in place to help the officers coordinate our own
planning and processes. We have in place what we call the HORT,
the House Officer Recovery Team, along with a large manual that
goes with it. It is to deal with fires, to broken pipes, to
simple issues--to now much more significant issues as we
learned last fall.
The office itself is in place. We are looking forward to
doing some additional hiring for that office in the not too
distant future and get them under way in terms of updating
procedures and processes for the House.
Mr. Taylor. Will all the funding requirements related to
emergency preparedness, other than security, be coordinated and
verified by this office?
Mr. Trandahl. That is probably the most significant
function for this office, to help us to identify weaknesses
and, more importantly, help us to improve our coordination. We
have a lot of good people. That is a great asset here in the
House. There will be things that we will need to add in, but as
we discovered through the two incidents last fall, it is really
a matter of pulling together people and coordinating people as
quickly as possible to respond to situations. So yes.
CURATORIAL STAFF
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Jeff, what is the status of your
office's activities relative to creating a historical and
curatorial staff in the Office of the Clerk?
Mr. Trandahl. As I discussed at length last time with this
subcommittee, I feel very strongly personally, that the House
has been underrepresented and underserved when it comes to
historical and curatorial activities here in the Capitol and on
the House side of the complex. Ms. Kaptur, in particular, has
raised that time and time again in terms of concern about the
House collection, identifying inventory, preserving, and
maintaining it.
Fortunately, with the support of this subcommittee, and the
SubCommittee on House Administration, we have now been able to
go from basically a staff of three people to now a staff of
eight. We have just added the first curator to the House,
compared to nine on the Senate side, and we are hoping to add
some more resources here again this year. As well, we have just
proposed to the Committee on House Administration to separate
that office out and create an Office of History and
Preservation, which would take on the curatorial, archiving,
and historical functions for the House.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
We are now making great progress. We are in the midst of
doing several different projects, whether it is inventorying
actual items in the House collection in the Capitol, to trying
to work now with the Senate. The Senate has already begun a
project where they have identified all the historical items in
the Senate half of the Capitol building. The interesting part
of their project is we found a lot of things that were
purchased and brought into the House collection that somehow
found their way to migrate to the Senate. Hopefully we will be
able to engage in conversations and maybe bring a few of those
things back to the House.
Mr. Taylor. Are we working to coordinate both in getting
those items back as well as with the Senate Sergeant at Arms
and staff to coordinate any tours that we give? Whenever we
take guests into the Capitol, they do not understand the break
between the Senate, the House, the old Senate Chamber, and the
old Supreme Court, which formerly was the old Senate Chamber in
the beginning. We like to take people through that, as well as
the things in the House. Can we coordinate things so that it is
much easier to do? Can we contract for one person perhaps, in
the House side, or hire a curator or someone so that we get the
ability to go throughout the Capitol complex at one time rather
than having to contact people to open, especially after hours,
which is the best time to tour.
Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Taylor, that is a big focus of this
staff, to help not only do research back and to determine the
history, but to help document and start creating publications,
signage and information for people, so when you are giving a
tour, not only do you know the location of items but you also
know accurately the history of the items.
The Architect of the Capitol will be appearing later in
front of the subcommittee and can talk much more extensively
about the Capitol Visitor Center. But a lot of our activities
will help complement what we are trying to do at the Visitor
Center with the tours to enhance the visitor experience and
giving more information relative to many items in this
building--items that probably many of you in this room aren't
familiar with, or even exist, and their history.
Mr. Taylor. Probably not. I appreciate what is being done
and it is one of the reasons that I supported the Visitor
Center in the early phases, because it will give an opportunity
to students, and others, to come in before they come to the
item, rather than just to walk through and assume they are
going to get by osmosis the knowledge when they walk by an
item.
But it is going to be some time before we do that, and
perhaps we can coordinate something for the Members that are
still giving tours.
Mr. Trandahl. Okay, we will work on that.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. And about getting our items
back from the Senate, will your curator be working with the
Senate to coordinate in that area?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, the interesting part about the Capitol
here is there are three separate collections of historical
items. There is a House collection, a Senate collection and
then a joint collection that the Architect oversees. So we are
working with all three groups of people to basically coordinate
and identify and inventory all the items.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I would like to continue with you,
but let me break at this moment and ask if Jim has any
questions before we go further. Mr. Moran? Also I have some
questions that I will submit at this time to be answered for
the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Financial Management System
The CAO'S budget request is $99.9 million ($99,863,000). This is
$9.3 million, or 8.6%, below the enacted level. The request includes
$3.2 million for ``financial systems replacement.'' The House, as a
member of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council, should be
working alongside the other legislative branch agencies in an effort to
share a common financial management system.
Question. Is the House working with the Council (LBFMC) to achieve
a common financial management system?
Response. The CAO attends quarterly LBFMC meetings in which
Legislative Branch entities share information on current efforts
underway in their organizations to begin preparations for replacing
their financial systems. The group has agreed that only systems meeting
common Federal government functionality requirements, as defined and
tested by the Joint Financial Management and Improvement Program
(JFMIP), should be considered. Selecting one financial management
system to meet all Legislative Branch entity requirements may be worth
exploring, but compliance with JFMIP requirements will ensure the
financial system selected by an entity contains the same basic core
functionality, such as the U.S. Treasury Standard General Ledger
(USSGL), that could enable common data to be extracted and consolidated
for the Legislative Branch. Additionally, the CAO has included GAO and
the LOC on its financial system replacement steering committee.
Question. Have you selected a system?
Response. No. The House is currently evaluating the results of a
market analysis which indicates that viable vendor solutions are
available that meet House functional requirements. One of the systems
surveyed is being considered by other Legislative Branch entities.
Should House stakeholders approve the CAO to proceed forward with an
acquisition, various criteria such as acquisition cost, annual
operating costs, ability to meet unique critical House requirements
will be used in selecting a solution.
Question. Does the House have such unique requirements that a
common system could not be utilized?
Response. The House does have certain unique requirements. For
example funds are authorized on a Legislative Year for each Member and
Committee for which there must be proper accounting. Such funds are
appropriated on a fiscal year basis as well as 15 and 27 months for
Committees.
There is also a specific statute that has the appropriated funds
canceled within a three-year period whereas with most other agencies,
funds are available for a five-year period before funds cancel and must
be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Question. What financial improvements will the new system provide?
Response. The new system will improve and integrate financial and
administrative support provided to House Members, Committees and other
House entities. These entities will have real time access to their
financial data available at their desktops. This means that a Member
will know the status of their account during the year. The new system
will be more user friendly and easier to navigate. The current
financial system is an outdated mainframe based system whereas the new
system will use new and advanced technologies that meet the House's
needs and will consolidate aging subsidiary systems (legacy systems).
Question. What is the estimate of the total cost of the system?
Response. Cost outlays are estimated to be between $11.3 million
and $14.8 million for the acquisition and implementation of the system
and between $10.7 and $13.7 for 5 years of operational costs. This cost
estimate is based on an analysis of information provided in the Market
Analysis completed in March 2002 and currently under review. It is
important to note that these estimates exclude any additional hardware
and software or annual maintenance costs associated with backup
capabilities. We do not own our current FFS system, but outsource with
the Department of Interior (DOI), so this function is currently done by
our vendor in Denver and is part of the overall annual contract.
However, this function will become a house responsibility with the
acquisition of a new system. It is best to estimate backup costs during
the acquisition phase of a project.
Question. What is your time frame for system implementation?
Response. Assuming that an acquisition document is released by
August 2003, implementation would occur during Fiscal Year 2006.
Question. What will be the annual operating cost of the system?
Response. The annual operating cost of the new financial system is
estimated to be between $2.1 and $2.6 million. This estimate excludes
any amount for backup capability as previously mentioned.
Question. What backup will there be for system operations?
Response. Currently, DOI, our contractor performs the back up
function. Once the House implements its own financial system, the
backup function will become a CAO responsibility and will be another
consideration for the alternate data center.
Wide Area Network
The CAO has requested $4.9 million for a ``Wide Area Network''.
Question. Can you tell us about this project?
Response. A Wide Area Network (WAN) is a geographically dispersed
telecommunications network. The House's WAN project provides the House
community with a highly reliable, fault tolerant, and high performing
``highway'' to information services inside (e.g., House campus, Member
Offices) and outside (e.g., Member district offices) of the House. Key
areas within this project include:
Member to district office ``Flagship'' (frame relay/DSL)
connections at 256K speeds
Monitoring and diagnostics for service issues and problems
Design, installation, maintenance, and documentation of
the House's WAN (frame relay, private lines, Integrated Services
Digital Network (ISDN), remote dial and broadband (Digital Subscriber
Line (DSL), Virtual Private Network (VPN), cable)
Lifecycle replacements and/or upgrades for supporting
hardware and software infrastructure
High speed access to the Internet through the House
Intranet
In fiscal year 2001, House Information Resources began the upgrade
of Member Office Flagship connections to district offices from 56k to
256k. This increase in connection speed allows Member Office staff to
access information more quickly, therefore increasing opportunities for
efficiency. As of mid April 2002, 192 district offices had been
completed and the remaining district offices are slated for upgrade by
the end of May 2002.
Question. Will this be the total cost of the network?
Response. No. The $4.9 million is in essence the annual sustainment
cost associated with leasing and supporting data connections at
anticipated speeds between the House campus and district offices and
House business partners. If connection speeds remained relatively
stable from one year to the next, we could expect our annual costs for
the WAN to remain at or around $4.9 million. However, as Member Office
requirements for faster data line connections increase between their
Washington, D.C. and district offices, as well as expectations for
faster and better connections to the Internet from the House network,
the associated sustainment costs will probably increase to accommodate
these higher levels of service.
Question. What are the annual costs associated with the Network?
Response. Practically the entire $4.9M is considered annual costs
associated with the WAN. Specific sustainment (annual cost) items that
comprise this amount include:
Thousands
440 Flagship data lines (1 per MO)............... $3,221
Data lines for Internet access................... 630
Infrastructure data lines........................ 505
Lifecycle replacement of ``end of life'' routers. 150
Cisco hardware and software maintenance.......... 166
Sustainment contractor support................... 150
As required equipment (maintenance/parts)........ 82
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total (Non Personnel)................................. 4,904
As stated previously, as the requirement for faster data line
connections increases, the annual costs associated with this project
will also increase to address these increased service levels.
additional fte's
The office of the CAO has requested an additional 36 FTE'S.
Question. Where will the 36 additional staff for the CAO be
deployed?
Response. Additional staff for the CAO will be deployed in the
House Information Resources (HIR) area and the Immediate Office of the
CAO.
Question. What will be the duties and responsibilities required of
the additional staff?
Response. The events of September and October 2001 have
demonstrated the House's dependency on reliable information technology
as it conducts business and Members staff communicate with each other
during times of national or local crises. Immediately following the
tragic events, the CAO conducted an in-depth organizational assessment
to improve its coverage of House systems during unexpected emergencies.
The assessment results identified the need to expand operations and
technical support to 24 hours a day/7 days a week for key technology
and communications support areas. The specific CAO operations which are
proposed for 24x7 coverage are the following:
The Emergency Communications Center--which will also
assume the duties of the HIR call center and the Network Control Center
during non-core business hours
Information Security Systems Monitoring--this includes
firewall, intrusion detection systems etc * * *
Messaging Systems--this includes Blackberry services
Internet/Intranet Systems Management--this includes the
proactive monitoring of systems to include web servers and critical
file/print servers
In addition to the 24/7 coverage, we are requesting additional
personnel who will be responsible for drafting and disseminating
internal House communications normally performed by public affairs
offices in government agencies and departments, both in times of
emergencies and normal business operations. These personnel will also
undertake to improve CAO internal communication efforts to improve
House personnel knowledge of CAO services. Changes in CAO functions and
services, together with normal House personnel turnover, have resulted
in a lack of consistent awareness and understanding of services that
are available to House Members, staff and offices.
W-2 INFORMATION
With all the changes in the tax code, more and more people are
using computer based or web based tax preparation services for their
taxes. I've noticed that private sector employees make available the
electronic transfer or download of employee W-2 information.
Question. What, if any, barriers are there for the House of
Representatives to make available to our employees the electronic
transfer or download of employee W-2 information?
Response. The main barrier is our current payroll system. No
programmatic changes to this outdated, mainframe-based system are
planned because the system will be replaced within one to two years.
Once the new payroll system is in place, there should be no technical
barriers to provide employees the electronic transfer or download of
employee W-2 information.
COMMUNICATIONS
At the time of the tragic disaster on 9/11, there were many
instances of facilities such as AT&T's directory assistance facility in
New York being temporarily put out of commission, thereby making it
impossible for news media and others to access certain New York
officials. I wonder what thought you have given in your office to the
following types of questions:
Question. How would Members and Staff be able to contact local/
state/federal officials in their own districts/states or other
districts at the time of another disaster that knocked out a local
telephone company's directory assistance or the House computer system?
For example, if a Member was traveling and a tornado strikes the
hometown, how can the Member conveniently come up with a number for
FEMA or National Guard facility? Or if there were a disaster here what
contact records could be accessed and how accurate would they be?
Response. The House does not provide national directory assistance
information. Maintenance of nation-wide information by the House would
be cost prohibitive and unreliable. However, Members can call national
directory assistance by dialing 1-area code 555-1212 to obtain
telephone numbers in an emergency. As a general practice, however, all
Members should maintain and routinely update emergency contact
information specific to their state and local governments. This
information can be easily stored in personal data assistance such as
the Blackberry device or in the Member's cell phone. Other suggestions
include preparing and carrying a small laminated card containing
important emergency services contact information for their district,
and having District offices maintain a complete contact list. Also,
phone numbers for FEMA regional offices are available on FEMA's web
site and there is a www.411.com directory assistance web site on the
Internet.
Question. How would Members be able to immediately contact local
officials (e.g. the sheriff) in their constituencies?
Response. During national emergencies and other crisis, Members are
encouraged to use their Government Emergency Telecommunications Service
(GETS) cards, which will improve probability of call completion through
voice lines. However, if the local supporting telephone central office
is destroyed or is out of commission, then the call will not get
through until repairs/work-arounds are in place.
Question. What steps are you considering that would ensure the
continuity of Congressional business for Members, staff, Committees
regarding needed interaction and accessibility to other government
entities and important contacts within a Member's constituency? Have
you given any thought to making available for Members, the Committees
and even the Congressional phone operators an accessible data base that
they could reach conveniently at anytime any place to reach needed
contacts in an emergency or in the course of normal business?
Response. The fundamental issue in providing assured
telecommunications connectivity is avoiding a stressed public
infrastructure. Unfortunately, most solutions to avoiding the public
infrastructure are expensive. Several steps are being considered to
enhance accessibility back to the Member's district. These include
issuing GETS cards to the Members; issuing satellite telephones to
Members; providing a frame relay backup to district offices (possibly
via satellite and with a single phone line that avoids the public phone
system (PSTN)); a private cell phone system for the downtown DC area;
and, mobile communication vans to provide support to Members both
during emergencies and for non-emergency off-campus gatherings of
Members.
The U.S. Capitol Telephone Exchange maintains an extensive database
of Member's personal emergency contact information (for Washington and
the district offices), provided the Member has volunteered this
information. Contact information for government agencies and executive
branch personnel is provided to the Capitol Exchange via the House and
Senate telephone directors that are produced by the Clerk of the House
and the Senate Sergeant at Arms. Outside of this information, the
Capitol Exchange Operators depend on national directory assistance to
obtain emergency contact information.
Question. What can we do to best maintain the continuity, in this
sector of communications concern, and resiliency of Congress after a
calamity, wherever it might occur? What are the fail-safe back-ups--
logistically, geographically, the degree of accuracy and accessibility?
What files should be available remotely?
Response. There is no one system that can guarantee 100%
communications connectivity during an emergency. We are pursing a
strategy of multiple layers/methods to significantly improve our
ability to support House communications. In addition to the methods
listed above, we are considering upgrades to our campus telephone
system (and how it connects to the public infrastructure) that will
eliminate current single points of failure and improve our resiliency
and access into the public network. Members have also been assigned
Blackberry devices to enhance wireless communications via email and the
distribution of GETS telephone calling cards will increase the
probability of call completion during times of national emergency and
crisis.
Several different offsite facilities are being identified that will
support House data and phone service, provide limited Member office
support, support a House chamber, and house the U.S. Capitol Telephone
Exchange and the database of Member's personal emergency contact
information.
All Member files on their servers will be backed up to the
Alternate Computer Facility. Member offices have received information
concerning the preparation of ``Go-kits'' for their office. These kits
should be prepared for offices here in DC and in the district
containing information/files that individual Members deem important.
Members are encouraged to assist in planning for future emergencies by
capturing important telephone numbers for state and local agencies and
officials.
Question. Please discuss the status of your efforts to facilitate
reliable, remote accessibility to House computer systems.
Response. The Office of the CAO prepared a report on this subject
(Providing Remote Access for House Computer Systems--February 8, 2002)
in response to the conference language in the FY 2002 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill. In that report, the CAO described the
progress on current activities in this area and identified areas that
we are planning to pursue in the near future. Examples of the areas
addressed in the report include:
Remote Dial-In and Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Services--these tow technologies allow users to remotely access (e.g.,
from home or on travel) the House's network enterprise through secure
means. We have recently upgraded these services such that we can now
support approximately 192 concurrent dial-in users and 100 concurrent
VPN users. Planned efforts in this area will include assessing business
continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DR) requirements for concurrent dial-
in and VPN users and implementing necessary changes to the technical
infrastructure to support these numbers. In order to ensure that only
authorized House personnel can access the House network, we use secure
ID cards (SecurID). We have recently implemented an upgrade to this
system that will be completed this spring so that we can support 16,000
cards.
District Office Flagship Service Upgrade--this effort, to
be completed in May, will provide District Offices with an upgrade from
current 56Kbps connections to 256Kbps. In doing so, these district
offices will be capable of supporting additional staff should
relocation be required and Members choose to use their District Offices
as an alternate site for some staff.
Wireless Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)--while not a
replacement for a desktop computer, PDA devices are providing wireless
access to email and related functions that are helping Members and
staff ``stay in touch'' even when not in the office. Additionally,
House Information Resources will pursue expansion of wireless web
solutions for House PDA users so that they may access House Intranet
information and ultimately extend the functionality of these devices
beyond their current use. Support is currently being provided to over
1700 Blackberry devices.
Alternate Data Facilities--we are working with a joint
Senate and House task force to formalize requirements and identify
sites that can be used to establish an alternate data facility. The
intent of this effort is to ensure that in the event of a major
disruption to the House's current Data Center, critical legislative
business processes can continue. This facility will also support backup
and storage of Member, Committee and other House entity data as
requested.
Other initiatives currently planned:
Secure Access--Anytime Anywhere--We are in the initial
stages of investigating technologies and strategies to support the
concept of secure, anytime anywhere access. This concept refers to the
ability to access an organization's computing services from multiple
devices (e.g., PDAs, laptops, home/personally-owned computers) and
multiple locations. Essentially the theory is if you can get to an
electronic connection (wired or wireless), either directly to the
enterprise or through the public Internet, then you can get access to
computing services to meet your specific business need. Once the
investigative phase is completed, we intend to identify business areas
that represent targets of opportunity for near term payoff and
recommend appropriate pilot and/or implementation projects.
Thin Client Services--These technologies are currently in
the investigation stage. We have incorporated analysis of this
concurrently with our current Exchange 2000/Windows-Server Next
Generation engineering study. Currently technology such as Timbuktu is
used to allow remote access to a computer from a distant site. Use of
Timbuktu can often times allow a home user that uses 56Kbps dial-in
service to be able to achieve an improved performance experience.
Specific offices are also supported with secure Citrix server
implementation which allow remote access to office computing services
across a slow network connection without the need to leave the specific
user's office computer on.
Alternate Facilities--To date, the CAO, Clerk, Sergeant at
Arms and other offices have been involved in establishing facilities
for an Alternate Chamber, Alternate Member, Committee and Support staff
offices and interim Data Center backup facilities. Memorandums of
understanding are approved or in the final stages of development and
for some facilities equipment and connections have already been
established.
MAIL PROCESSING DELAYS
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Chairman Taylor, and I agree with your
assessment from all four individuals. I would like Dr. Eisold
to join us again on the panel. You have done a superb job and I
have great respect for our four officials today. I think Dr.
Eisold and Mr. Livingood, particularly, at a time of stress and
crisis have performed extraordinarily well.
But let me ask some questions that I am concerned about.
First, we will go to the mail issue. The Senate chose to
process its mail basically by itself and we chose to contract
it out, I understand. First of all, I would like to know the
cost of that contract. I am getting mail even now that dates
back to December. Two weeks ago we got the bulk of our
Christmas cards. Last week we got some mail that was postmarked
in February. So it is getting better. But it is not
particularly helpful. Most invitations, for example, are sent
about a month in advance. Most of the mail we get now, because
it is so late, is useless.
It is also crushed. I am curious what is the purpose of
crushing the mail? And most importantly, I want to know what it
is that we have protected ourselves from through all of this
expense and delay and processing.
Mr. Eagen.
Mr. Eagen. I think that is primarily me, Mr. Moran. With
regard to the time that it takes for some of the mail to get
through, you are definitely correct. I have gotten Christmas
cards myself in the last couple of weeks. And when we ask those
questions of the Postal Service why that dated mail is still
coming through, the explanation basically is what I referred to
earlier, is that in the accumulation of trailer upon trailer,
they are giving those to us in different order. Sometimes it is
the most current mail, sometimes it is the older mail.
RECONSTRUCTING THE MAIL PROCESS
Mr. Moran. So you are saying the fault lies with the Postal
Service. What batches of mail they are giving to you, or is it
the contractor?
Mr. Eagen. No, it is definitely a combination of the Postal
Service and the House's ability to process the mail in this new
manner. The facility that we have constructed offsite through a
GSA-leased facility has only come fully on line in the last
month or so. Mr. Hoyer has been helpful over the weeks of
working with the local county officials to get the permitting
process through. And we are basically, as I mentioned earlier,
reconstructing the entire House mail sorting and distribution
process. In addition, we are adding all of this new sampling
capability to verify that the irradiation is successful. It has
taken us time to build all of those facilities.
The Postal Service has been delivering trailers to us in
inconsistent time frames. But then it does still take us time
to process all of that mail, depending on exactly what it is.
MAIL PROCESSING TIME
Mr. Moran. I just can't understand why it takes up to 3 or
4 months to process mail. I just can't envision in my mind what
the process is that would require that kind of time. Can you
just explain to me in layman's terms the physical processing
that takes that much time?
Mr. Eagen. I will explain the front end of the process as
best as I know it, which is a Postal Service process. The mail
is put in a mailbox, obviously wherever in the country, and is
sent into their stream. It comes to Washington, D.C., where it
is sorted into streams of government and nongovernment, and the
nongovernment mail goes on. All the government ZIP Codes are
then going through the irradiation process.
Mr. Moran. This irradiation process, this is a process that
takes less than 24 hours.
Mr. Eagen. From the date of the postmark, correct. And at
that point, it is then trucked en masse originally either to
Lima, Ohio, or to this facility in New Jersey and our
understanding as of last week is it will be solely to the
facility in New Jersey, where it is irradiated. It is not
sorted within the government mail at that point. So it is just
the bulk of all the government mail. It is then irradiated and
then it is shipped back to Washington to what I understand is a
tent out at the Brentwood facility where it is being sorted.
And then it eventually comes to the House.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Now, so the Postal Service sorts it out
you are saying by ZIP Code and then?
Mr. Eagen. That is for the government mail ZIP Codes. They
do not sort within the government ZIP Codes.
Mr. Moran. They sort out government and nongovernmental
mail. And is it like recycling? After everybody recycles we
throw it all in the same bin anyway? Why don't we keep some
sense of the results of the sorting at that point? Is that
impossible to do?
Mr. Eagen. The Postal Service says that their process is
better to just do it as one lump of the government and then
sort it when it gets back here into these separate----
Mr. Moran. So they are not doing the sorting out--so the
beginning of that process does not take effect any longer? You
were describing the process, and the mail comes in and they
would normally sort it by ZIP Code. They do not sort it
initially. It all just comes in, what, by region or something?
Mr. Eagen. No, it is sorted by all of the government ZIP
Codes into one separate government ZIP Code.
Mr. Moran. All the government ZIP Codes in the Washington
Metro Area?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. And the government has separate ZIP Codes?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. It does? So these Federal office buildings over
in Arlington, they have a separate ZIP Code from the private
office building next door?
Mr. Eagen. I can't speak to each building, but the House is
20515, the Senate is 20510, so on.
Mr. Moran. Is our mail mixed with the executive branch
mail?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, it is.
Mr. Moran. And the executive branch mail includes not just
the Federal office buildings in Washington but the Metro Area?
NIH? The Pentagon?
Mr. Eagen. It is my understanding that it is the entire
Metropolitan Area.
Mr. Moran. And so it is thrown into this enormous mountain
of mail. Anything that starts with 22, I suppose or something
like that. They just throw it into this mountain? They do not
go through the sorting process?
Mr. Eagen. Well, just to clarify, they do go through an
initial sorting process to take that out of the rest of the
mail stream. So there is one sort.
IRRADIATION PROCESS
Mr. Moran. So now they have hundreds of thousands of pieces
of mail coming in every day, I suppose. And then they throw it
all onto a truck and they have been driving this now to Ohio,
this truck of unsorted mail. Now they just drive to New Jersey.
It comes in there, and then do they take every individual piece
and irradiate it?
Mr. Eagen. No, it goes through in bags.
Mr. Moran. So there is just a mass radiation in bags. So
these letters that went to Daschle's office, irradiation would
have killed any of those anthrax spores, John?
Dr. Eisold. That is right. That is the process. And I know
that the process as it proceeds even goes further because you
know that you have a corner snipped off.
Mr. Moran. You have a corner snipped off?
Dr. Eisold. Most of my mail has. They look to see if there
is any substance in there that might spill out. That is an
extra safety factor, although we are confident that any
biological agent in that envelope is killed.
Mr. Moran. Is killed through irradiation?
Dr. Eisold. Yes, but I still would not deliver some funny
piece of mail that had dust in it.
Mr. Eagen. It kills the anthrax but it does not remove the
anthrax.
Mr. Moran. The dead spores then. Have we found anything in
this process, processing the tens of millions of pieces of
mail?
Mr. Eagen. Not yet.
Mr. Moran. Nothing. So it was preventive, but if we had
taken a chance and not done it, it would not have made any
difference? Nothing has been found that actually justified all
of this, other than preventive measures?
Mr. Eagen. Well, except that there was the Daschle and the
Leahy letters.
Mr. Moran. But those were successful. Our actions haven't
actually prevented anything, have they? I am trying to
understand what the net results of the investment of time and
expense have yielded.
Mr. Eagen. The answer is we haven't had a positive sample
so far.
Mr. Moran. No positive sample. At this point it has all
been precautionary.
So we irradiate it. It is irradiated. Now that is--I can't
imagine that to be a particularly long process. Probably a few
seconds to throw it into a batch and blast it with radiation.
Mr. Eagen. It goes through twice is my understanding, so
not just once, but, no, I don't think it should be an
exceptionally long process.
ALTERNATE IRRADIATION FACILITY
Mr. Moran. So it goes to New Jersey to give it a blast of
irradiation. We decided that there is no other place that could
radiate it?
Mr. Eagen. The facility in New Jersey has the largest
capacity facility that they could find. The Postal Service has
purchased four of the machines on their own and the intention
for the mid to long-term is that they would install those
capabilities in the Metropolitan Area to eliminate the trucking
requirement.
Mr. Moran. Are they working on that?
Mr. Eagen. They have the machines. I understand they are
struggling in finding locations.
Mr. Moran. So there is nothing being done right now to find
a closer place? So it comes into New Jersey, and so far, I can
imagine it might take a few hours to drive up to New Jersey, a
few hours back, so a day and then a few minutes to zap. I am
trying to figure out what it is that is causing 3 or 4 months
of delay.
Mr. Eagen. Well, I think you have to separate out--in my
mind you have to separate out the ideal mail flow from current
mail, which my sense is we are getting to that, versus mail
that got backlogged over the last couple of months either from
the initial quarantine of the entire government mail stream,
but then the follow-up results of trying to process that
backlog and storing. Last week they delivered eight trailer
loads of mail to us all at once.
Mr. Moran. All at once?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. They delivered eight trailer loads sorted?
Mr. Eagen. Sorted for the House.
Mr. Moran. So that is just dividing it into the House or
the Senate--not the Senate, the Senate is doing their own
thing.
Mr. Eagen. That is right.
Mr. Moran. Just giving you the House. Is the processing
that used to take less than 24 hours, this processing by ZIP
Code, and yet this is a process that is now taking 3 or 4
months and we are paying how much to do this?
Mr. Eagen. It is costing us--we are not paying for the
irradiation. That is the Postal Service's cost. The House does
not bear that cost.
PITNEY BOWES CONTRACT
Mr. Moran. Yeah, but aren't we contracting?
Mr. Eagen. We have historically contracted with Pitney
Bowes in the House processing the mail, even prior to last
fall. They have been the House mail contractor since 1995.
Mr. Moran. But we are paying extra for this extra
processing; right?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Moran. How much are we paying?
Mr. Eagen. Right now about double what it used to cost.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I guess that is the thrust of my concern.
Maybe I am being unreasonable, but it seems to me that the mail
delivery has been virtually useless since September 11th. I
mean to get something 4 months late. I suppose it is nice to
know. Suppose I sent you a Christmas card 4 months ago, it is a
little silly to respond at that point. But none of the
invitations are helpful, I would rather not get mail that has
not been answered for 4 months. I would rather say we never
received it because nobody is going to believe that we got it 4
months late.
So it would have almost been better if we had not got any.
So the mail has been, as far as I am concerned, a useless form
of communication, and yet we are paying double for it. And
there has got to be some explanation for why it is taking that
4 months to be received. I still don't understand why that is
the process. It is not irradiated one by one. The sorting
process used to take place in 24 hours, and yet it is taking 4
months. I think it is a legitimate area of inquiry. And I guess
I would like a better explanation.
OFF-GASSING
Mr. Eagen. I think there are other factors. Those factors
are that there are additional steps. We did not finish walking
through the process. When the mail comes back to the Washington
area and to the Brentwood facility, it is left, I think, for 24
to 48 hours for an off-gassing procedure.
Mr. Moran. Off-gassing? What is off-gassing?
Mr. Eagen. You want to speak to that?
Dr. Eisold. It is much like I mentioned before. When this
mail is irradiated everything in there, dust, bugs, mites,
plastic takes a hit. And some of it melts or changes into
different chemical substances. Some of it vaporizes. And so it
is those type of by-products that we felt were irritating
people. And they found it very effective to then spread the
mail out in well-ventilated areas for 24 hours to let any of
those by-products that developed drift away.
Mr. Moran. I can understand why that would take a day.
BRENTWOOD FACILITY
Mr. Eagen. The other factor that I mentioned in the opening
statement, the Brentwood facility, where they had the high
automation systems for all of this government mail and that
facility is still closed. Only in the last couple of weeks that
I started to read articles about the Postal Service's plan to
clean that facility and make it possible to use all of that
automation to sort all of this mail. So my understanding is
they have been doing a lot of this by hand in tents and trying
to use other facilities to pick up the sorting of this mail.
So where once there was the high automation that you
described of turning an envelope around in 24 hours, a lot of
that capacity, both at the Postal Service and within the House
itself, was destroyed via last fall.
Mr. Moran. Brentwood had a high level of automation? But
most Postal Services still do it by hand, and they still do it
within 24 hours.
Mr. Eagen. At one point they were telling us that the
result of the dryness of the irradiated mail was hampering the
machines that they used because of the higher dust level. They
are encountering all levels of problems that are slowing down
what used to be an extremely speedy automated system.
Mr. Moran. Have all the periodicals been thrown out?
Mr. Eagen. No, they are in the third class mail category
that was approved to start flowing on March 25th.
Mr. Moran. Okay. But again periodicals that are 4 months
old are not particularly useful.
Mr. Eagen. I understand that.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I guess I have beaten this enough. I still
do not fully understand why it has taken as long as it has. But
I guess I should go on to Mr. Hoyer.
But I have got some other questions about offsite
facilities, about our preparation if we shut down, for remote
computer communication for this mobile communication system
that we have. So I will just give you some advanced warning I
want to ask about that. But at this point we have got other
members here that want to ask questions.
Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Following are the questions submitted to be
answered for the record from Mr. Moran.]
Remote Access
Question. The events of September 11th and the anthrax incidents
underscored the need to improve access to our computers and information
systems from remote locations. While I applaud the efforts that have
been undertaken to date, I suspect the additional improvements are
still warranted. I would like to work with you in assessing this
capability and finding the resources to enable Members, staff, and
agency employees the ability to access their computers from a remote
location. It is my understanding that the single most important
technological device that would achieve this objective is to equip more
offices and staff with laptop computers. Do you agree with this
assessment?
Response. Providing Members, staff, and other House employees
(e.g., contractors) the ability to access their computers from a remote
location requires an end-to-end solution. Our strategy is to provide
access for Members and some staff (about 2,000) from an Alternate House
Office Building. User terminal devices (e.g., PCs and Laptops) are
required to provide this capability as well as a dedicated data network
connection from the alternate site to the House Campus network.
However, there are other required elements such as SecurID
authentication devices, individual circuit connections, and House
egress capability.
Question. Since most offices may not have budgeted for this
expense, do you think we should establish a one-time adjustment in
accounts to permit the purchase of the necessary equipment?
Response. A one-time adjustment to the appropriation for all House
entities other than the MRA and the Committees could be used to defray
the costs of the user terminal equipment (e.g., laptops). However,
spending levels for the Members Representational Allowance and
Committee authorizations are set by the CHA and any increase would
require their approval. In addition, the capacity of House equipment
and circuits would need to be expanded in order to provide an adequate
level of access and throughput needed for the additional remote users.
Question. I am still troubled by the difficulty with which Members
and staff can access their offices from a remote location. In your
estimation, what are the major roadblocks that have prevented most
offices from gaining remote access?
Response. In order to access the House network from a remote
location, Members and staff need a laptop computer, a secure means of
connecting to the House network, and a network with the capacity to
bridge the remote location to the House network. Some design work and
hardware procurement is required to complete the dedicated connection.
Question. In the perfect world, what additional resources would
make this goal more easily achieved?
Response. Procurement of laptops and SecurID cards, some design
work (contractor support) and procurement of network hardware to expand
the current capability of the House network.
COMMITTEE ROOM RENOVATIONS
Question. How much have you requested for Committee Room
Renovations in FY 2003?
Response. The request for Committee Room Renovations in FY 2003 is
$4.5 million.
Question. How many rooms will you be able to renovate at that
funding level?
Response. Depending on the results of a room-by-room assessment and
room availability, between January and December 2003 approximately six
rooms could be renovated. Outside of the basic standards, each room is
unique in its audio and video requirements so it is difficult to
determine exactly how many could be renovated at the requested funding
level. The cost to renovate each hearing room could be as little as
$210k for audio only to $800k for audio and video. The $4.5 million
could cover additional costs outside the base standards that each
Chairman chose to have done.
Question. What is the process for prioritizing the schedule of
renovations?
Response. The Committee on House Administration (CHA) will
determine which Committee is next on the implementation schedule based
on where a Committee is in the Phase II design development and approval
process. The CHA will notify House Office Building Commission (HOBC) of
the prioritization schedule. For other Committees in the future, a
letter of request will be sent to CHA signed by the respective
Committee Chairman. CHA will again determine and notify HOBC of the
prioritization schedule based on where a Committee is in the Phase II
design development and approval process.
Question. Are all rooms being brought up to a certain standard to
assure infrastructure compatibility in the future?
Response. In anticipation of technology improvements and at the
request of Committee Chairmen, additional technological capabilities
and enhancements will be completed during the Renovation Program. Each
Committee room will have infrastructure build outs, electrical conduits
and raceways that will accommodate the following technologies:
Auto Streaming, Broadcast Cameras, Broadcast Network Feeds, Closed
Captioning, Computers, Digital Microphones, DVD's, Limited Data Feeds,
Plasma Screens, Polycoms & ``Squawk Boxes,'' Projectors, Speakers,
Timers, Teleconferencing, and Transcribers.
Question. What parameters are Committees given when their rooms
come up for renovation?
Response. Committees are required to follow audio standardization
guidelines set forth by the CHA. A complimentary video standard is
currently under development that Committees will also be expected to
follow:
Question. How many years is this project expected to continue?
Response. This project will continue for a least 3 to 4 years.
Question. How is this being coordinated between the CAO and the
Architect of the Capitol?
Response. Once the respective Committee has the CHA approved 100%
Phase II drawings and specifications for their hearing room the
drawings are provided to the Superintendents Office for a cost estimate
for the infrastructure build out. After completion of the cost
estimate, letters requesting approval and authorization for the
construction are signed by the respective Committee Chairman, AoC and
HOBC. Upon CHA receiving HOBC approval, the designated CAO program
manager holds a coordination meeting with the CHA, Construction
Management Division, FRC for dais and furniture repair and/or
replacement, Superintendents Office, respective Committee staff, HIR
for CAT 5 & fiber installation), design and installation contractor's
and Office of Procurement for the team to address additional
infrastructure comments or concerns and build schedule.
OFFSITE FACILITIES
Question. Please describe some of the off-site facilities that are
planned.
Response. To date, the CAO, Clerk, Sergeant at Arms and other
offices have been involved in establishing offsite facilities for an
Alternate Chamber and Member Briefing Center to provide Members a
location outside of the Capitol Building to meet and receive
information from the Leadership and United States Capitol Police in the
event of an emergency; Emergency Response Center to coordinate incident
response activities of various agencies; Alternate Member, Committee
and other House entity offices; and an Alternate Computer Facility.
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) are in the final stages of
development and some facilities equipment and connections have already
been established. Future efforts under this project include the
development of comprehensive ``Go Plans'' for each facility such that
various permutations of loss of House campus facilities can be
supported. For example, if a single House building were inaccessible,
pre-arranged offices would be available at the alternate facility,
including House network connections, phone services, and basic office
equipment that could be occupied on very short notice. Where
unwarranted, sites will also include capabilities for remote access to
support personnel that may not be in the alternate site but may be
working from home or a District Office.
Question. Are the offsite facilities going to support some of the
day-to-day workload or are they going to sit idle?
Response. The Alternate Computer Facility will be an active
facility with a full-time staff of twelve, who will perform day-to-day
activities in support of the House pending a declared emergency. As the
other facilities are needed they will be brought online to provide day-
to-day functions in support of House operations.
Question. What are you doing to achieve economies of scale with
other organizations that are also establishing back up facilities?
Response. A joint Senate, House, Architect of the Capitol, and
Library of Congress task force has been working on establishing the
Alternate Computer Facility to support the needs of the participant
organizations.
Question. Why is 24x7 data center coverage necessary?
Response. The intent of this effort is to ensure that in the event
of a major disruption to the House's core information technology
infrastructure, regardless of the time of day, critical legislative
business processes can continue. This facility will also support backup
and storage of Member, Committee and other House entity data as
requested.
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
Question. How much is requested for mobile communications?
Response. As part of the FY 2002 Emergency Supplemental, the CAO
received funding for a concept called Mobile Communications. The intent
of this concept is to provide a capability that would allow quick
establishment of voice and data services at alternate locations where
members and staff may be temporarily located during an emergency. In
addition, under this project, we are investigating alternate wireless/
mobile voice communications services (e.g., private cellular,
satellite-based) that would have a higher degree of reliability during
emergencies than current public networks. The specific implementations
that would be pursued are still in development as part of the CAO's
overall Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery Program.]
In FY 2003, the CAO has requested $5,100,000 to support the
operation and maintenance of the Mobile Communications capability. The
funding will be used for items such as recurring monthly charges for
any purchased services, equipment maintenance and licensing, and any
expansion to the capability that is not addressed on initial
implementation.
Question. What capabilities will we gain that we don't have at this
time?
Response. At this time, there is no off-site/mobile communications
deployment capability that will backup and support the following:
Interim Member Briefing Center standup off of the main
campus
Incident Response Center standup off of the main campus
Allow for continuous access (remote access) to House
communications systems during an evacuation
There is currently no assured form of cellular communications on
campus, all cellular communications are in direct competition with the
general public switched telephone network (PSTN). The establishment of
a private cellular network on campus that extends approximately 3 miles
beyond campus for House Members and key staff, will provide an assured
layer of communications that is not dependent on the public network,
which may be overloaded in times of emergency conditions. Current
planning has the House and Senate sharing the cost of deploying this
private cellular system. In order to provide true worldwide
communications capability, satellite telephony is needed to keep House
Members and key staff in communications with each other wherever they
may be around the world. Satellite telephony is able to service
locations around the world where cellular cannot. This effort is
initially intended to provide satellite handsets to House leadership
and key staff. At this time, it is estimated that 100 satellite
handsets will be made available. If additional handsets are needed,
they can be provided as requirements are identified.
Question. How was this estimate developed?
Response. These initial cost estimates were developed by talking/
meeting with vendors and carriers and getting their estimates of what
it would take to provide these emergency communications capabilities.
For example, a private cellular vendor successfully conducted an on
campus demonstration of the capability for 90 days and it provided
valuable insight into what it would take to implement the system
campus-wide. These estimates will be updated as more relevant
information becomes available.
Question. What will be the recurring costs of this initiative?
Response. The recurring cost for the offsite/mobile communications
capability is estimated to be $210,000 per year. The recurring cost for
the assured communications capability is estimated to be $1,030,000
(private cellular service system and satellite telephony) per year.
Question. What plans have been developed for housing the equipment?
Response. The current plan is to house the offsite/mobile
communications deployment capability in a communications vehicle that
can accommodate all of the required communications equipment and
support personnel. It will be a self-contained standalone capability.
STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
Question. Where do you stand with implementing the student loan
assistance program?
Response. In accordance with the direction of the FY 2002
Legislative Branch Appropriation Conference Report, the Committee on
House Administration has taken the lead in preparing a proposal for the
student loan assistance program. Their draft provides for a significant
role for the office of the CAO and we have provided technical
assistance in drafting the proposal.
Question. Have there been any uniform guidelines established to
ensure consistency implementing this program among Legislative Branch
agencies?
Response. The Legislative Branch Financial Management Council has
developed implementation guidelines. This question is properly
addressed to the Committee on House Administration since they are
drafting the proposal.
MAIL OPERATIONS
Question. What was the amount spent for mail processing in FY 2001
and what is the total you are projecting to spend in FY 2002?
Response. Expenses in FY 2001--$3.3 million; Expenses in FY 2002.
Labor costs for processing mail are capped at $592,877 per month.
The contract with Pitney Bowes was modified in November 2001 to a time
and materials contract with this amount as an upset price. Work is much
more labor-intensive, labor rates are higher for new skill-sets
required, and work includes processing packages as well as USPS mail.
Payment to GSA for rent, utilities, security, etc. for the Capitol
Heights offsite mail facility, $534,242 per year with LOC and Senate
sharing costs.
Estimated cost for completion of build-out of Capitol Heights
$4,000,000 with LOC and Senate sharing costs (Subject to adjustment
based on actual bids received by PBMS).
Estimated costs for additional equipment $644,000 with LOC and
Senate sharing costs.
Question. If the additional costs are funded, what will be the
total budget for mail processing in FY 2003?
Response.
FY 2002 revised costs............ $7,114,525 ($592,877 monthly)
Est. annual costs/Digital Mail... 5,001,432 ($416,786 monthly)
Plus 50% of GSA occupancy 267,121
agreement.
--------------------------------------
FY 2003 Estimated Postal 12,383,078
Budget.
Question. What functions have been added during FY 2002 and what
other changes are anticipated in FY 2003?
Response.
1. Offsite mail facility.
2. Additional manual processes for assuring sanitization of mail.
3. Separate staff within Pitney Bowes for delivery and processing
because of offsite location.
4. Processing of all UPS, FedEx and Airborne packages that were
previously delivered by shippers.
5. Exploration of possible implementation of digital mail and pilot
program for digital mail.
Question How long is the average time between a letter being sent
and delivery in a Member's office?
Response. USPS has indicated that it takes up to ten days for mail
to be processed and delivered to the House. The House has documented a
rate of 4.7 business days for delivery to Member offices after receipt
from USPS. Statistics vary from day to day, but on May 6, 2002, the
House Inspector General found that 17% of the USPS delivered mail had
postmarks older than March and 10% had postmarks in 2001.
Question. Are the initiatives planned for FY 2003 designed to
streamline the process?
Response. The CAO is working with the Senate and Federal agencies
on a task force at the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the
White House to determine more efficient processes for detecting
contamination in the mail and speeding up processing. The House is also
working to identify a shorter, but just as reliable, method of
detection of anthrax and other pathogens. The USPS has indicated that
they are looking for a local site for an irradiation facility to
eliminate the time necessary to travel to New Jersey for irradiation.
Question. Are sufficient precautions being taken for the staff
(both contractor and in-house) who handle the mail at various stages in
the process?
Response. Yes. Pitney Bowes has extensive safety requirements and
procedures in place for their employees. The mail has been tested by
Pitney Bowes, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and no
dangerous levels of contaminants have been found in the mail.
MAIL PROCESSING DAY-BY-DAY
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Moran. We are going to be in
hearings most of the day, and we will try to move along with
the various people coming in. Mr. Wamp, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoyer. Zach, would you yield one second?
Mr. Wamp. Certainly.
Mr. Hoyer. I think it would be useful, Jay, if you would
submit for the record a day-by-day chronology of the mail
processing, because I listened to Mr. Moran's questions. And I
am not sure I could explain to another Member exactly why it
takes as long as it does. I think Mr. Moran is right. I think a
presentation of exactly the steps and the time it takes and why
it takes that much time would be helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Each member will have the opportunity to submit
questions to the witnesses, for the record, if you do not have
the chance to ask them today.
Mr. Wamp?
[Clerk's note.--The day by day mail processing chart
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EXPRESSING GRATITUTDE
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief, but I think
this is really important to share. We have the Attending
Physician, the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the Clerk of the House, the Inspector General, the
General Counsel, et cetera, et cetera, all very important
titles. But in the movie Braveheart, William Wallace said,
``Men don't follow titles, they follow courage.'' I want you to
know on behalf of my children, my wife, my constituents, that
when that great call to courage came, you all performed
incredibly well. Day in, day out, week in, week out. All the
hundreds of people that work for you deserve our appreciation.
We have not given those people our gratitude at an
acceptable level thus far, the people that stood in the gap. I
saw the pain on Dr. Eisold's face over and over again when we
had the anthrax problem. I saw Bill stand courageously when he
had to. Jay and Jeff, and others, it really is extraordinary
the job that you did when we were in a crisis, and we are not
out of the woods. And as Jay said, we are not going to come out
of these woods, we have got to learn to operate in these woods
from here on.
You all signed up for jobs that have great titles, that
have great prestige, but you never signed up for what you got.
We did not either, but we get a lot of praise and you all do
not get enough and the people that work with you and for you
day in and day out do not get enough thanks from us. I just
want it to be reflected for the record that this committee that
funds the salaries and expenses of all of those people in these
different categories--this is not the sexy subcommittee. This
is not the sexy subject matter. This is kind of the grunt work
of the appropriations process, and the grunt work of the
operations of this form of government, which is the best in the
history of the world.
And you all are extraordinary people who have actually
become even more extraordinary, much like our President has at
a time where courage is necessary. People can either become
great or fade away. I think we have all collectively stood the
test of time.
COORDINATING ACTIVITIES
I have two questions. One, Bill, can you give us a briefing
on how well we are coordinating all of the activities with the
Visitor Center construction and how we are going to wean off
the overtime of the Capitol Hill Police and not go back to
normal, but deal with the new paradigm, and how are we
coordinating? Is there a group that meets every week that has a
master plan for this that you all are each a part of? That is
one question.
Then I want Jay to talk to me about how people are doing
and how are the families of your workers. Each of you all can
respond because I am most interested in the people effect of
what has happened and what this committee can do to make sure
that the quality of life and the fear factor is manageable.
Bill?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, Mr. Wamp, thank you for your comments.
I also feel the same way about everybody, and particularly
employees in my office, the other officers' offices, and the
Capitol Police. I feel very committed to that, and I feel very
deep feelings about that every day.
To answer your question is there one group that meets? No,
sir, there are several groups that meet. For the Capitol police
issues, the Capitol Police Board meets. We are meeting weekly,
sometimes twice a week on these issues. One issue is trying to
get the Capitol police back to some normalcy, trying to get
them back to 8-hour shifts where they don't work excessive
overtime and they can be at home with their families and yet
still maintaining the vigil that is needed at the U.S. Capitol
and the buildings.
We also have a second group, and that is the group of House
officers that meet periodically. We have a scheduled meeting.
And we also have a third group that meets, and that is with the
leadership staff and the officers. Also included is the
Architect in all of these meetings. So I think we do stay
cognizant and on top of the constructions, the Visitor Center,
the security requirements, the day-to-day changes that are
occurring, and try to keep each other informed more than ever
before.
This is new, and I think we do a fairly good job of keeping
each other informed.
EMPLOYEE FAMILIES
Mr. Wamp. Jay, how are the families doing?
Mr. Eagen. I would say mixed. We did a survey last fall
once all the buildings were back open. We had a professional
independent firm come in and do a survey of all offices, member
offices, committees, administrative offices like Bill's and
Jeff's and mine, and tried to get a sense of how people reacted
to last fall, what did they think of the communications, what
did they think about the information, how did they feel about
their safety and their health.
Generally, the House campus was concerned about their
health. A more specific kind of anecdotal example is the child
care center which is under my purview is and located in the
Ford Building, where the contamination was found in two
locations. We had parents withdraw their children. They didn't
feel completely safe while we were dislocated and while they
didn't feel completely safe to come back, some of them have
come back. Once they got a chance to come and tour the center
and see it, they felt comfortable again and felt that we were
taking the right steps to prepare for the future.
Last fall one of the task groups that we put together--we
had a Chamber Task Group and a House Office Building Task Group
was a Human Matters Task Group, and we recognized exactly the
point that you were referring to, is that not only our
employees but your staff were going to have difficulty dealing
with this, and the job of the Human Matters Group was to simply
focus on that aspect, trying to think through what are the
questions the people were going to have. When the conference
calls were done with Members and Chief of Staff, we
brainstormed the types of questions that we were having from
staff and Members and tried to answer them up front so people
had the best information that they could have.
But I think there is still generally a worry out there, if
you will, amongst a number of people and I think that is one of
the reasons why when you ask the questions, Mr. Moran, that we
do have serious decisions to make about what kind of security
systems we keep related to the mail and peoples' comfort
working in this environment, and it is not an easy question to
answer. I want to assure Mr. Moran, I didn't say this in answer
to your question, I understand the mail is not going as fast as
it should. I don't want you to believe that I have thrown up my
arms and it is the way it is. I will not rest until we find
ways to make it meet your expectations. I want you to
understand that that is the way we are going to go about our
business.
Tighter Security
Mr. Wamp. Let me address that in closing because I believe
there is a silver lining in every cloud, and I believe as one
member of this Committee that has been here 5 years on this
Subcommittee, we need tighter security standards around the
traffic in and around the Capitol, and that is the silver
lining in this cloud, is that we can now do that for all the
right reasons. And I have taken many school groups, as any
Member of this House--I did this morning, last night--but we
just can't keep our guard down, and that is the silver lining
here. We can improve our security.
Let me tell you this. We need to move quicker towards a
paperless environment. It is absurd the kind of junk we throw
away. We need to reduce our dependence on all this paper and
move these offices to paperless, and this is a catalyst for
that. So let us use this tragedy for positive things and move
quicker on these things and not be so reliant on the mail. I am
glad that it forces us to change and I hope everybody will
respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me
inquire at the outset, are we going to have a separate hearing
on the Capitol Police?
Mr. Taylor. We are going back to a closed hearing that you
requested.
Mr. Hoyer. I don't know whether that was me or not.
Mr. Taylor. Maybe not. But we will have a closed hearing
continuing on from the one we had a few days ago.
Capitol Police Turnover
Mr. Hoyer. I won't spend a lot of time but Zach mentioned
it, Jim mentioned it and you mentioned it. I think, Zach, you
are correct. I do not believe we have the complement of
personnel in the Capitol Police at this time to effect the kind
of security that you just said you thought was appropriate. And
we have probably, am I correct, Bill, the highest turnover
level that we have had in the Capitol Police since you became
the Sergeant at Arms?
Mr. Livingood. That is correct. Only in the last 3 weeks,
Mr. Hoyer, and that is because of these other agencies,
particularly one that we all know is a new agency that is
hiring 40,000 new employees--that is the Transportation
Security Agency--are just sweeping law enforcement officers
from our department and other departments.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, the TSA is taking law enforcement
officials from a number of Federal agencies, not just
ourselves, and those other Federal agencies are looking for
officers as well. And frankly, unless the Capitol Police are
competitive in terms of pay, hours, benefits and family-
friendly hours, we are going to lose a lot of people that we
have spent a lot of money to train and who understand this
Capitol, understand their responsibilities. I think we have a
critical situation. I won't call it a crisis, but a critical
situation confronting us to which we must respond.
Mr. Livingood. And we are looking at that, Mr. Hoyer, and
getting a briefing on that and recruiting weekly, and there are
a number of people leaving. We have taken some innovative
methods to increase our recruitment.
OEPPO Budget Request
Mr. Hoyer. I look forward to the hearing that we are going
to have, and I appreciate you doing it. Let me go on quickly to
ask some other specific questions.
Mr. Trandahl, you indicated we have on board now the head
of the Office for Emergency Planning Preparedness and
Operations. It is a $2.6 million budget request for that. Can
you briefly outline how that would be spent and what you would
expect the Director to accomplish.
Mr. Trandahl. That budget request of $2.6 million comes in
a separate part of the budget. It is actually under the Speaker
and the Minority Leader and they control that budget. As I
understand it, the way the request has come in, it is mostly
oriented towards personnel and they are looking at a staff of
five to six people. As well, there is a possibility of bringing
in a contractor.
Previously when the three officers were creating this House
Officer Recovery Team the last 3 years here, we had used a
contractor to help create many manuals, processes, and
information. So there is that possibility of bringing in the
contractor and contractor expense to complement that staff.
Beyond that, I really know nothing more.
Page Dormitory
Mr. Hoyer. Let me go to the page dormitory. How is that
working out?
Mr. Trandahl. It worked out very well. As the subcommittee
is familiar, we had about an 18-month process in terms of
working with the Architect of the Capitol, to renovate 501
First Street. The pages were previously in Annex 1, which is
slated to be torn down by the Architect because of the
structural issues within that building. The construction was
slow. We got it done on time, though. We got the kids relocated
into the facility the end of last August, and we are in much
better shape in terms of having the kids in that facility--a
stand-alone facility, with the fire protection and evacuation.
All those features that we can bring into the facility are a
dramatic improvement for the page program.
Publications
Mr. Hoyer. We have authorized a number of historical
publications which you are helping to prepare. Ms. Kaptur and I
and others are very interested in these. Can you give the
status of the publications that chronicle the Women, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islander
Americans in Congress?
Mr. Trandahl. And Women in Congress. All four of those
publications are currently in the pipeline. Currently we have
that historical staff that we have just expanded. We are
looking to print those probably the spring of next year. As
well, we will be making those publications as current as
possible. We will have a new Congress coming in at that point.
Mr. Hoyer. You expect by the next Congress they will be
available?
Mr. Trandahl. It will be in calendar year next, but it will
depend on what changes will be effected by an incoming class of
Members.
Mr. Hoyer. So you are going to wait until the new class?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes.
Restaurant Customer Satisfaction Survey
Mr. Hoyer. Jay, let me go to you briefly and this will be
my last question, though I have others. I have been concerned
since I got here about the quality of the restaurants on the
House side, quality of the food, quality of the service. I am a
very strong supporter of organizing workers. But I am also a
strong supporter of performance and quality. We have increased
somewhat the quality of both, but I don't think it is where we
need to be.
We have discussed customer-satisfaction surveys. Would you
tell me whether they have been conducted and, if so, what the
results and what action, if any, we are taking as a result of
the surveys?
Mr. Eagen. Yes. Guest Services, Incorporated, which has
most of the responsibility for the House campus, everything
except for the Ford Building, brought in an independent firm
called the Food Group last fall once we returned to the
buildings and did a customer satisfaction survey focused on the
House building facilities. It was focused on customer service
specifically, because that was an area that you had been
raising questions about and we asked them to focus on customer
service, how are customers treated by the staff, what is the
accuracy of the order they get. Performance aspects, not
specifically food quality aspects. Customers were asked three
questions, and in each of these categories, does this exceed
your expectations, does it meet your expectation or is it below
your expectation. Rayburn Cafeteria and the Rayburn Deli,
Special Orders Deli got a combination of 100 percent meet my
expectations and exceed my expectations. The two lowest rated
facilities were not food facilities, the convenience store and
the dry cleaners. Lowest rated food facility was the 24 hour
vending room, but that was still in the 90 percent combination
meet expectations and exceeding expectations. So what was done
on the dry cleaners is the lowest one, that was only 79 percent
meet and exceed expectations. Guest Services made a decision--
that is a subcontracted operation. They kept the back end of
the process with the subcontract provider, but they pulled the
staff out and put their own staff into the facility to start
running on the front end.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. LaHood.
Return to Old Mail Processes
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Eagen, do you think you will ever come to a
point where you will make a decision not to use all the
processes that are currently used for processing mail? Do you
think we will ever go back to the time when somebody drops a
piece of mail in Peoria and it will arrive in Washington, D.C.
Within 24, 48 hours to my office?
Mr. Eagen. I think it will be difficult to do that.
Mr. LaHood. Why? Particularly given the fact during the
entire time that these processes have been in place, you
haven't found one anthrax letter except for the one that was
delivered to Senator Daschle's office, and I know that there
was anthrax found in Mr. Pence's office and also another office
up on one of the top floors of Longworth. But given the fact
during this entire period of time there have been no letters
delivered to Members of Congress with anthrax in them, at some
point don't you reach the point where you say, maybe we can go
back to some more normalcy.
It is fine what Zach said about a paperless system, but I
represent 20 counties in central Illinois. Some people can't
afford to do anything other than to write a letter, hoping that
some day it will reach their Congressman or their Senator. And
I am wondering if you made the decision or somebody made the
decision because there was anthrax in a piece of mail or some
pieces of mail to Senators, that since there hasn't been any in
a long time, do we ever think about maybe going back to a
system where eventually it won't take 6 months to reach a
Member of Congress?
Mr. Eagen. I definitely think forward to the idea of
achieving a system where it doesn't take 6 months or 3 weeks.
But the fact remains even with the scenario of last fall, the
perpetrators of the Leahy and Daschle letters haven't been
found; the individuals that did what they did last fall to my
knowledge are not in the hands of law enforcement officials. So
maybe they are the only ones in the world that are going to do
something like this. Even they are still out there, and they
probably could do it again.
Alternative Mail Solutions
Mr. LaHood. So is what you are saying until we find the
people who sent the mail to Mr. Daschle and Mr. Leahy that we
are not even going to think about going back to some sort of
normalcy of this system of delivering mail to the U.S. Capitol?
Is that sort of your benchmark, that once these people are
apprehended that maybe you are going to think about going back
to normalcy?
We haven't found bin Laden but we are not waging the same
kind of war because we have done a lot of the people in over
there. But bin Laden is still out there somewhere.
Mr. Eagen. Absolutely not and I think exploring solutions
like digitization of the mail and working with the postal
system to make the system as speedy as possible is what we need
to do for the near term. But the guidance I have received from
the leadership of the institution is that we do not want to be
put in a situation where House office buildings have to be
closed again for 6 weeks or 7 weeks or 8 weeks at a time and
that we need to have the security protocols in place to protect
the institution from those kinds of scenarios, and I proceeded
with that mission in mind.
MAIL PROCESSING RAYBURN
Mr. LaHood. Well, with respect to the processing of mail in
the basement of the Rayburn parking garage, there is a group
down there that is processing mail in an area where cars are
supposed to be parked. The people there are violating the
Federal law by smoking cigarettes; I didn't think you were
supposed to smoke in a Federal facility. That is a mess down
there, Jay. I don't know who is responsible for it, but you got
people actually sitting in the right-of-way where people are
backing their cars up and people pulling their cars in and it
is not a very professional way to process mail, and I don't
know if you are in charge of it or not but I want you to look
into it.
It needs to be eliminated. It is a mess down there. The
people that are down there have been found to be sleeping--I
don't know who they are working for, if they are under your
jurisdiction, but I want you to look into it and something
needs to be done. It is not a professional way to be processing
mail in a building and it is not the area that it should be
done in.
Mr. Eagen. It is my responsibility and I will look into it.
EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER
Mr. LaHood. Let me ask you about another one of my favorite
subjects, and I don't know if anybody did a study with respect
to some kind of a gymnasium or a facility for the employees of
Capitol Hill that we had talked about a year or so ago and
included some language in the bill last year to look at that.
Can you give us a report?
Mr. Eagen. I can. The appropriations bill directed that the
CAO in connection with the Architect--and we did an interim
report in January where we did a survey of the campus and
identified potential physical spaces where a facility could be
established. We visited a number of other facilities in the
Washington Metropolitan Area that were in similarly situated
organizations and found potential business models that met the
standards that were in the request, which is to have a self-
supporting facility. The next step that we recommended in the
study that we are undertaking now is actually to do a survey of
the staff to determine the level of interest.
Mr. LaHood. Is that being done?
Mr. Eagen. That is going to be done the end of this month.
Mr. LaHood. How are you going to do that?
Mr. Eagen. We hired Booz Allen Hamilton to do the survey
for us and they will ask what kind of physical facilities would
you like to be available to you, what kind of fees would you
like to pay as far as monthly and initiation fee, how far would
you walk from your office, what times of day would you use the
facility. That would help us craft the business model.
Mr. LaHood. Do you have a time model when you know that is
going to be sent out and then calculated and all that sort of
stuff?
Mr. Eagen. The survey is scheduled to go out the end of
this month.
Mr. LaHood. I guess the firm then will provide the results
to you?
Mr. Eagen. Right.
Mr. LaHood. And then you will mull it over and make some
recommendation to us?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, I think I will go back to that and apply
that to a business model or potential business models that you
may want to consider as to what the business solution to the
House is budget-wise.
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. LaHood. Who is responsible for the new mechanisms that
we have for people entering the Capitol out here, the new--I
don't know what the term of art is, but all the security out
here. Is that you, Bill?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Is that permanent or temporary?
Mr. Livingood. Talking about out on the south barricade,
where that is?
Mr. LaHood. Correct.
Mr. Livingood. That is temporary. The construction which
you see, which is humongus out there on the south is for the
Visitor Center. They are putting in the utility lines. That is
why the whole area almost as wide as this room is ongoing and
that is expected to be finished, I think, the first week of
May. Don't hold to me to that, but I think that is what the
Architect said.
Mr. Trandahl. Bill, I don't mean to jump in. I am going to
correct you a little bit. The Architect will be appearing
before the subcommittee, and they will be able to give you much
more in the way of construction timetables. Actually what will
happen is the construction that is going on out there right
now, the utility relocation for the Visitor Center would have
disrupted all the utilities that run into the building. They
will finish the first half of that phase I believe on May 7 and
the drive as it is right now will flip. Where we are walking
and driving now will become the construction site and what they
are working on right now will be finished to a point where we
will be walking and driving on that side. And I think that will
take another 5 or 6 weeks and it will be finished.
ARCHITECT BRIEFING
Mr. Hoyer. Bob Ney and I have asked the Architect and the
Officers to prepare a full briefing for all Members on what is
going on. I know you get asked and I get asked every day what
is going on, so that the Members will have a full briefing on
present status, timeframes, what is permanent and what is not
permanent. Hopefully they are also getting graphics as to what
it will look like.
Mr. LaHood. When is that going to take place?
Mr. Taylor. We will have the Architect here tomorrow.
Mr. Hoyer. They are trying to get renderings because when I
met with them I said Members want to know what it is going to
look like because they want some expectation that this isn't
going to look horrific. The Visitor Center is going to be 3 to
4 years in construction, so we are going to be under this for
some period of time. But Members need to know what is the
Visitor Center, what is security and what it is going to look
like at stages and at the end. And we are trying to do it as
soon as possible because Members have a great deal of interest.
Mr. Taylor. We will receive more explanation tomorrow at
the Architects hearing.
Mr. LaHood. I have heard a rumor they are not going to
allow Members to drive their cars onto the plaza. And if that
is a fact and not a rumor, you need to be prepared for the idea
that there is going to be a lot of screaming around here from
Members who cannot walk from their offices to the Capitol
either underground or above ground. So we need to be prepared
for that.
CORRECTIONS CALENDAR
Let me just finish, if I can, Mr. Chairman. Who is
responsible for the line item called the Corrections Calendar?
Anybody here or is that----
Mr. Trandahl. The Speaker's office runs the Corrections
Calendar.
Mr. LaHood. Should I ask somebody in the Speaker's office?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Should I tell him you had a scared look on your
face?
I will just make this point, in this session for the last
year-and-a-half, I don't know of any activity with respect to
the Corrections Calendar. Maybe there has been. But I will
check with Ted on this, but the Corrections Calendar budget is
going from $883,000 to $915,000. But, I will talk to Ted about
that.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just finish by saying I want to
associate myself with what everyone has said about the
extraordinary way that all of you folks have performed. I think
all of us were scared not to death, but pretty scared by what
happened on 9/11 and I think could not have been more reassured
than by what all of you have done collectively and the people
that work for you, and so you have done great work. You really
have.
And I think Zach put it the best that he could and I want
to associate myself with him, but I also want to say the big
thank you to all of you and all of the people who work in the
Capitol who don't get any thanks for all the extraordinary work
that goes on around here.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Kaptur.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Ms. Kaptur. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed listening
this morning and, as my colleagues, I want to thank all of you.
Dr. Eisold, you are quite photogenic on television, by the
way. I wish I could say the same about myself. And thank you
for the tremendous service that you provided to our families
and members not just on 9/11, but to the whole country really,
and your composure and your professionalism and your service
was very evident. So we thank you and thank your family for
producing you letting us share you with the country.
Mr. Livingood, also the service you provided to us as
Members--though the first day was very confusing, I have that
memory. This has changed my life. I love this. And I think it
is very important that regardless of what happens in the future
that we be allowed to function. I know it was very
disheartening to me, I happened to be up at Bethesda at 9
o'clock that morning--on 9/11 I happened to be up at Bethesda
when all of that happened just trying to call in here and then
trying to find the Speaker that day urging him not to shut down
the broadcast facilities or to have alternate locations so we
could at least keep broadcasting across the country. I thought
that was so important, but just to locate him.
I actually found a connection to him by calling into the
Physician's office here, since I was up at Bethesda Naval,
saying I need to find the Speaker, how do I get to the Speaker?
And someone was sitting in his office was able to get a message
to him. And then the next day--not that my message made a
difference, but at least we were able to function. And just
going through that experience and not feeling like you were
connected to the main ship here, that you weren't able to get
in was a very discomforting feeling, and so I support all
efforts to keep us functional.
We are our Country's first line of defense on the political
front, and we ought to be present visually and in an audio
nature, and I know people are talking about how to make sure
that that happens regardless of what might happen to the
Capitol area itself, and I fully support that effort.
I don't want to go over the ground that has already been
plowed but in general I think it is important for everyone in
our country to think about what this teaches us and what we
need to do to change the future. That is really our job and
each of us has a special responsibility there. And to some of
the future witnesses that come before us I am going to be
asking a lot about the way we in the Capitol and the way we
behave and conduct our lives can set an example for the
country.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
For example, even in the way we generate power and the way
we purchase it, the way we produce it, what example could we
better set here in the way we function? We will have the
Botanical Gardens up this afternoon, and I want to ask them
questions about photovoltaics, about heating and cooling in
that facility. And if I have a major economic goal, it is to
sever this country's connection with imported fuels of all
kinds, because it has too often become a proxy for our foreign
policy.
So my first question, and I think each of us in whatever
dollars we spend and whatever dollars we have under our
jurisdiction, we have to think about this. I want to ask Mr.
Livingood if you could perhaps comment a bit--I was looking at
the Capitol fleet and I think you own about 117 vehicles. At
least that was the list I was given, and I know there are some
plans to purchase some additional vehicles. I am going to
submit for the record a list of alternative fuel vehicles that
are manufactured by companies in our country, which largely are
not--where? You don't have any auto plants in California but
one, so you are dependent on our region of the country for
that. But even most of these vehicles can be purchased.
[Clerk's note.--The vehicle inventory of the Capitol Police
and a listing of alternative fuel vehicles provided for the
record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES CONTINUED
Ms. Kaptur. It is interesting, most of these vehicles can
be purchased but you can't buy the fuel. But if you want a real
vivid example of where we are really that just brings this
whole thing into perspective, where the Pentagon got hit, if
you go up around the road and you face it, you are going to see
a little gas station up there called Citgo, only place in the
Capitol region where you can buy ethanol. I don't think you can
buy biodiesel there yet. But I think we have a major
responsibility even in the small fleet that you have
responsibility for here, sir, I think people here would help
you--how do we get America to change their habits to see there
was a different way to the future.
I thought there was no more vivid site for me than to look
at the hole in the Pentagon and to see that little gas station
frame and think to myself, oh, this is interesting, we are hit
in the heart of our Nation's defense and there sits that little
pump Citgo and that oil comes from Venezuela and that
government almost toppled over the weekend. And now prices for
many of our derivative products are going to go up because of
what happened there.
So I just wanted to ask, many of the vehicles you currently
have--there are four Ford Tauruses, 12 Chevy Suburbans, 1 Chevy
Tahoe, 5 Ford Explorers, 1 Ford van, 9 Chevy vans, 3 Chevy
pickups--they all can accommodate alternative fuels. I wanted
to ask if you have ever given any thought to this and also in
the new purchases that you are going to be doing whether you
have given serious consideration to purchasing vehicles that do
not depend on petroleum as the source of their fuel.
Mr. Livingood. To answer your question, 4 years ago we
looked at alternative fuel vehicles and we tried to go to a
couple manufacturers and see if we could just borrow some to
see how they worked. At that time, the world has changed now,
but at that time they were not very receptive in allowing us to
borrow some. And we wanted to do that before we purchased them
just so we knew the pickup; if they are patrol cars, do they
have enough pickup to stop a vehicle. One of our concerns is
that a lot of our vehicles are used in other locations than
just the Metropolitan Area here, our dignitary cars, when we
have congressional events outside the city. But we will--in
fact the chief administrative officer from the Capitol Police
is in the hearing today and we will look at that again.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, you know I would just say as one Member
of Congress, and I bet I could get a good dirty dozen to come
with me, we would be happy to sit down with the CEOs of the
largest manufacturers in this country and for the sake of the
Nation try to help you find some alternatives. I think it is
time we have to change and we all have to be a part of that.
And wouldn't that be wonderful to be able to help to change the
habits here and give a good example to the rest of the country?
ETHANOL VEHICLES
Mr. LaHood. Would you yield? I have no doubt the Illinois
corn growers would be able to provide you with as many ethanol
driven cars as you would like. They drive them all over
Illinois, and I am sure they would provide you as many demos as
you would like to try.
Ms. Kaptur. And one of my dreams--I don't know where your
officers purchase their fuel, but I want a pump up here where I
can buy the fuel for my car and I can't get it. You cannot get
it here.
Mr. Lewis. Would the gentlelady yield? I really apologize
for doing this. But some years ago I was heavily involved in
the air quality business in California. I had a bill that would
require all cars that had a place they came back to at night to
be able to be run by propane. An associate from the University
of California Riverside came to me and said, hey, wait a
minute, Jerry. We developed this idea but now we are learning
that propane, when it goes through the combustion process,
mixes with sunlight and forms a thing called propylene that may
be worse.
But in the meantime we were dealing with Detroit in those
days trying to look for improvement in gas mileage, et cetera,
et cetera. I have to tell you I have never seen a more
nonresponsive group than those major automobile producers here
in the United States. I am not surprised they don't have a car
to lend you. I am sure they are all using them themselves. In
the meantime don't get your hopes up. It is a long, long ways
before they are to really help us.
When OPEC came along, gas mileage improved. It didn't
improve until then.
Ms. Kaptur. I don't disagree with my good friend from
California, and I have the highest respect for him and there
has been no committee that has tried harder than our defense
subcommittees to access vehicles over at DOD, and the Postal
Service, by the way, has the best record in the Government of
the United States in terms of purchasing and R&D related to new
fuels and new vehicles. I would love to bring in these CEOs. I
deal with them all the time and sometimes the national
interest----
Mr. Lewis. I must confess to the gentlelady, I converted a
1965 Ford convertible, a beautiful vehicle, to be able to run
on propane. You know, that baby never ran again.
Ms. Kaptur. I have submitted this information for the
record and I would very much enjoy meeting with the
representatives of these corporations here, and I am going to
ask the gentleman to submit additional information about your
future purchases of vehicles that are----
Mr. Livingood. I will commit to you that we will look
strongly at purchasing vehicles with alternative fuel.
FOOD QUALITY
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very much. I have an additional
question, Mr. Chairman, and that relates to food quality. I
heard what Mr. Eagen said about these studies that were done.
And as a member of the Agriculture Committee, it is interesting
the term you used is what is in the machines met the
expectations. I don't know what that means, but I have been
amazed since my early years of service here to look at what is
in the vending machines here and I don't know who hires or get
the foods that is served in the cloakroom. That is the highest
sugar, highest fat, least nutritious food I have ever seen. And
you can't even get celery sticks. Maybe the guys around here
like eating all this stuff. But the doctor takes care of them
at the output end. And I think if I have a plea, it is that
nutrient quality, not sugar, rich fat, be the only way we
provide food in this--we should look at a set of alternatives,
certainly in the vending machines. I don't know how we get
these vending machines in here, whether we are paid by some
vendor to take the machine or we pay a fee. We have high sugar
in those drinks. You can't get a bottle of pure juice in this
Capitol. Once in awhile you can get an apple. But if you were
to do a survey of what is sold here in terms of food, it is
absolutely junk.
And it is the same message we give to every child in this
country when we have these vending machines in our schools, and
that is why a third of our kids are obese. We have the worst
problem growing up across this country coast to coast, and we
perpetrate that here. I am not asking you to get rid of the
junk food. I am just asking you to fill the other half of the
carousel windows with good food. How do I accomplish that in
this Capitol?
Mr. Eagen. I am the man that can try to do it for you.
Ms. Kaptur. We would be pleased to bring people from the
Department of Agriculture Nutrition Service in here to identify
product lines and to find a way to provide nutritious food to
the people who work here as well as those that visit. So I
thank you very much, very much for that.
I have some questions that I will submit to be answered for
the record regarding the food quality and artwork.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Nutritional Quality of Food Served in House Facilities
Question. I am concerned about the nutritional quality of food
served in House facilities. I pass by the vending machines in the
Rayburn building several times each day and have noticed an absence of
nutritious choices for Members and staff. Is the nutritional quality of
these foods a factor in the contracts you have with the vending
companies?
Response. Our contract with the food service vendors states, ``The
variety and appearance of food shall be consistent with approved food
service industry standards.''. The vending in the Rayburn subway area
is primarily used as a quick service area. While more variety and
nutritious selections are available in the 24-hour vending area, we
have asked Vending Services, Inc., the vending subcontractor for Guest
Services, Inc. to add more nutritious and healthy snack foods.
Question. Please tell us who are the vendors and for how long the
contracts run.
Response. Ford House Office Building--Skenteris Family Inc;
Capitol--Guest Services, Inc.; Cannon House Office Building--Guest
Services, Inc.; Longworth House Office Building--Guest Services, Inc.;
Rayburn House Office Building--Guest Services, Inc.; Vending
subcontractor--Vending Services, Inc.; Catering subcontractors--Uptown
Catering, Ridgewell's Catering.
Ridgewell's Uptown and Vending Services Inc. are subcontractors
under the Guest Services contract.
The base period for the Guest Services, Inc. contract runs until
December 19, 2002. The base period for the Skenteris contract expires
on September 15, 2004.
Question. What can be done to improve the selection of items
available, along with making certain that there is greater similarity
of offerings between the vending machines in Rayburn and Longworth?
Response. A new 24-hour vending are will be added in the Rayburn
House Office Building when the Rayburn Cafeteria renovation is
completed. This new area will feature cold food vending machines with
more nutritious and healthier offerings.
Question. Similarly what concern is given to the nutritional
content of the foods served in our cafeterias? I have noticed in the
Rayburn cafeteria that there are days when the vegetable choices
include several starches rather than a good variety. Certainly the
options can be improved upon.
Response. Guest Services, Inc. is revising the menu for all their
cafeterias. They will include more seasonal fresh vegetables.
Question. Do you know if anyone has ever given any thought to
posting the nutritional profile of the foods being offered so that
people can make more informed choices?
Response. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with Guest Services,
Inc. to publish the nutritional profile of their menus. We agree that
this would be a valuable consumer service.
Artwork in the Capitol
Question. What steps, if any, have been taken to respond to the
concerns regarding the representativeness of artwork?
Response. In addition to the new resources within the Legislative
Resource Center, several new works of art are being created for the
Capitol that reflect the diversity of citizens who have played
important roles in our history. Statues of two Native American women,
Sarah Winnemucca and Sacagawea, have been commissioned for inclusion in
the National Statuary Hall Collection. Amelia Earhart will possibly be
the subject of a statue in the same collection.
The creation of a curatorial specialist enhances the ability of the
House to research and locate potential artwork for acquisition and
loan, and the position puts into place staff to research and coordinate
the commissioning of additional art.
Question. What is currently in the House inventory of artwork that
represents women and their contribution to our country? Please specify
whether it is displayed or in storage.
Response. To date, Historical Services and the Architect of the
Capitol have identified 20 women of achievement depicted in House
artworks. Of those works, 18 are on display and two are in storage (see
Table HS-1). In addition, there are several paintings depicting events
in American history that include women, such as the Allyn Cox mural
segment of the 1917 woman suffrage parade. Because an authoritative
catalog of the House Collection is in process, Historical Services is
not able to provide a complete count of this artwork.
Women artists are also represented in House artwork. To date, 53
works by women artists have been identified, including fifteen in the
National Statuary Hall Collection (see Table HS-2).
Question. As you know, I have a great interest in being sure that
the artwork that is on display in the Capitol more fairly represent all
of those who have contributed to our nation's history, including women.
This committee has been very clear in recent years regarding
expectations that this situation be corrected so that women are more
fairly represented in our displayed collection. With respect to the
House of Representatives, what changes have been made over the past
three years with respect to what artwork is displayed?
Response. The first step towards bringing greater diversity to the
artwork of the House is to identify what already exists. Until
recently, the House has relied upon the efforts of the AOC curator, in
addition to its usual responsibilities, to identify and track House
artwork. Two years ago the Office of the Clerk created within the
Legislative Resource Center the Historical Services section, and this
year a curatorial specialist was added to Historical Services. This has
provided the House with the resources with which to identify gaps in
the collection. The curatorial specialist can assist the AOC curator in
carrying out this inventory. Historical Services staff can then
identify individuals, groups, and events that are missing from the
collection.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CAPITOL SAFETY
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Livingood,
I would like to congratulate you on your good judgment on
buying all those Chevrolets. I don't want to go over the ground
that has been plowed and harrowed. But I would like to add my
words of appreciation for what you and your people as a class
have done to protect us here and to make this system work in
very unusual times. I do think, however, as representatives of
650,000 people, we have to be able to take a certain amount of
risk for ourselves and there is no way we can shut the place
down and make it totally safe. We have to make the decisions
that we can make, the threat assessment, and reduce the risks
as much as we can, but the only way you can make it totally
safe is for us to go home and stick our head in a hole and that
is not what we want to do and that is not what we are elected
to do.
On the mail--and I realize we have spent an awful lot of
time on it, but it is a very serious problem because it is the
way so many of our constituents still contact their
Congressmen. And I received a letter yesterday that was
postmarked in the second week of October. So we still have
those problems. And I think if we accept that level of service,
we are sort of in a perverse way contributing to the problems
that the Postal Service is having nationally right now. I mean
their total financial performance since 9/11 has gone down the
tubes and we have got to continue to help work that out. And I
know that you have to have your security protocols, but somehow
that has to be worked out where the system works. We can't be
running a government where we are getting information from the
people we represent that was sent in October.
CAPITOL TOURS
Enough said. Mr. Livingood, the tours of the Capitol, and
when I say that we have to accept a certain amount of
responsibility for our own safety and take a certain amount of
risk if we are going to have this wonderful job of representing
650,000 Americans, I just would encourage you as you go forward
in that to make sure the system is not so safe that it doesn't
work. We still have to get our kids through the Capitol, and
your people, whenever I call, they are very, very cooperative,
but it is getting to be--the rules seem to change everyday. And
anything we can do--I don't think that there is--if we shut it
down so we can't take our school kids through the Capitol of
the United States, I think the terrorists have won in a certain
regard and I would like your comment on that.
Mr. Livingood. You are correct. We are doing everything
possible. We are meeting on tours every other day. This is one
of our top priorities, from this committee and the Committee on
House Administration. They are calling us every day. We have
doubled the number of tours in the last 3 weeks, doubled on the
South Door, and we have positioned guides out there. And you
will find when you walk by in the afternoon, there is barely--I
haven't seen more than 15, 20 people there waiting to get into
tours, where there used to be maybe 100, 150. So I think we
have made substantial gains.
Plus when I walk in the afternoon or around this time, late
morning, the Capitol is much fuller than it has been. So I
think that we are trying to address the school groups. We have
some other alternative solutions. The board meets early next
week, at least from the House side are presenting some
additional means to get people into the building. Where we are
slow is on the public tour because we have the East Front
screening center and that can only handle X number of people
per hour to get them screened to get in.
We have a new screening facility going on or being built
right by my office. It is the southeast corner of the building,
and that will be finished and ready for business May 20. That
will put more people into the building safely, but I think it
will address both our concerns.
Mr. Sherwood. I just would like to reiterate my thought,
the only way we will be totally safe is if we totally cease to
function. And so I would encourage you to make those decisions
knowing that we have to accept some risk. I think if we are
going to be leader of the free world, we have to accept some
risk.
COMPUTER SUPPORT
Mr. Eagen, we get wonderful service on our computers and
that sort of stuff generally through the vendors that are set
up with your office. The suggestion that I would have is that
sometimes--sometimes--if we are making a change, we ask what
functions will be lost in the transition and sometimes there is
some information lost there; in other words, we try to set up a
big transition and we got it all done and it is all done but we
lost some functions for a few days in the meantime that they
didn't inform us we were going to lose, and that again goes to
the issue of how responsive and how effective our offices are.
And it ties in--we can't be effective if we don't get our mail.
It is hard to be effective if our computer systems aren't up
and running, and I just ask that maybe there should be a
checklist developed so that when you make a change the offices
are informed of what we are going to lose during the change.
Mr. Eagen. We have something similar to that. Let me try to
describe it to you and see if it meets your needs. Three years
ago we started a program called a correspondence management
system evaluation program. When we learned that one of the
vendors is going to change its software, whether it is ACS or
InterAmerica or any of the other seven or eight that are doing
business on the Hill, we require them to submit it to us with
their marketing, and we literally have set up a lab down in
House Information Resources where we install the system. We
have a database that is similar to the size that most Members
have and we run that software through the paces and we measure
it against the marketing that they are claiming of what it can
and can't do and then we write up a report. We give the vendor
a chance to respond to that report and depending on how they
respond we do one of two things. We either reject the software
because it doesn't match up to the marketing or we say it is
okay, but then we publish the report on the Web as kind of a
consumer reports information piece. So that is available to
your systems administrator, and every time a vendor is planning
a software upgrade we go through that regimen.
TECHNOLOGY VENDOR SURVEY
Second, a year ago we started a contract with a combination
of the Congressional Management Foundation and the Gartner
Group. The Gartner Group is a leading technology consulting
firm, and they did a survey of all systems administrators of
customer satisfaction with the various CMS programs, was it
performing, was it doing what it was supposed to do, what kind
of service level are you getting in terms of the vendor being
there when you need them and all those kinds of things. And we
came up literally with ratings of the various vendors and their
products.
The survey is in the field for a repeat of that right now,
and we hope to have that report out in the next couple of
months before we get into the year-end buying season that
usually occurs around here as Members consider upgrading their
systems. The idea is now we have got a benchmark of a year-and-
a-half ago or 2 years ago and will now show what kind of
progress the vendors made in terms of those that were weak, did
they improve, those that were strong, did they get better, so
forth and so on.
Mr. Sherwood. I think it is our responsibility in our
congressional offices to use our Congressional office as an
example to the general public that government works, and we
have to get our mail, our computers have to work, and we have
to have our system set up in a tickler file so we know all that
stuff goes back out, and I thought in my office we had that
stuff working pretty well and since 9/11 the level of service
that we have given our consumers, our constituents, has dropped
significantly and we all have to work together to get that back
up.
And I would like to add my voice to the committee to thank
your people for all their hard work and sacrifice in this time,
and we very much appreciate it.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. Lewis.
ALTERNATE DATA CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Livingood, friends, welcome. I have a number of
questions. To begin with: 9/11. We have heard time and time
again how that day caused us to rethink where we have been.
Among other things I found fascinating is when those two
buildings came down in New York, there were within them the
central operations of some of our major financial institutions
who depend upon information to carry forward their work, and
responsibilities--responsibilities that are dramatically
important to our economy. I learned that many of these people
had anticipated the need for alternative availability of that
information if something should happen to the systems in the
building--I don't know if they thought their computers would
fail or what. There was backup storage relative to that.
I had questions about the Pentagon relative to the same
issue after the plane crashed into it and learned that we were
at least in the beginning stages of backup storage efforts at
places like Fort Belvoir. A lot of money was being spent to
make sure that data and information was available in a timely
fashion regardless of crises.
The Capitol has similar needs and I wonder if somebody can
tell me what we are doing and what the prospects are to make
sure we can function if our information systems were wiped out.
Mr. Eagen. That is my responsibility and we are probably
more like the DOD characterization that you did, that you made
than we are Wall Street. We have a number of capabilities in
place that allow us to remotely operate the systems and we have
backup regimens in place for the central mission critical
systems for the House. What we don't have is redundancy for
those systems, and one of the proposals that was in the
emergency supplemental for last fall is for the legislative
branch to create an off-site alternative data center to
undertake that mission. The House has already begun acquiring
the front end of those kinds of capabilities.
Mr. Lewis. What do you mean?
Mr. Eagen. What is called the Secure Area Network. It would
be equipment where the data as it is worked here on the House
side is automatically copied.
Mr. Lewis. So you are replicating the data and equipment?
Mr. Eagen. Replicating the data through specialized
equipment that serves that function. So if the facility in the
Ford Building on the sixth floor were lost, we would still be
able to function, yes, sir.
COSTS FOR ALTERNATE DATA CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Would you submit for the record what the current
costs are and what you anticipate the costs to be for the
center so we have an idea?
[The information requested for the record follows:]
The estimated cost of the actual build out (data center
infrastructure) is approximately $27 million. Included in this estimate
are all systems currently operating within the House, Data Networks and
Voice communications. The cost of sustaining these operations will be
approximately $3 million per year for the first two years and $6
million per year for the third and fourth year (due to life cycle
replacements).
Final costs associated with the property are still being
negotiated.
MEMBERS' GYM
Mr. Lewis. I especially want to welcome Dr. Eisold to the
meeting today. The health of Members is an item of interest to
many, especially to the individual member who may have health
problems one way or another. I happen to have a great facility
in California where there is a lot of experimental work that
goes on at Loma Linda University Medical Center. They do all
kinds of experimental things relative to how we get my hair
grayer and things of that kind.
I am very impressed by the services available to Members,
and it is very important to not have physicians just sitting
around waiting for a heart attack to occur or responding to a
specific health emergency that is unexpected but rather to have
a broader understanding of Member health issues. I would like
to ask Dr. Eisold questions about that general membership.
Well, let me first make a point: the gym is an interesting
facility around here and what the percentage is of Members who
use those exercise facilities I have no idea. But I do find the
swimming pool empty a lot and it causes me to wonder. We have a
guy who is a trained physical therapist down there, but unless
a Member asks for specific ideas about what they might do
better, there is a little interaction with health experts, not
nearly as much as there might be. Have you ever spent any time
in our gym? Have you worked out there?
Dr. Eisold. I do not use a gym here. I use a gym near my
home. It is too busy during the day to go away myself and use
the House gym, but I work closely with the House gym and with
people in the gym and have toured the gym, so I am very much
aware of its capabilities. I think what you touch on is
probably the hardest thing to do in medicine, and Congresswoman
Kaptur touched on it, too, when she talked about nutrition. It
requires individual discipline, will power and scheduling to go
to the gym or eat the right things. And our job, either the
people in the gym or my office, is to keep pushing those
concepts with people like yourself or other people not using
the gym.
MEMBERS' HEALTH
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I have often suggested and have
had some interaction with physicians of the Capitol in the past
about what might be the valuable result, especially for the
young Navy physicians who are here, of programming exercise
regimens that would specifically attack or impact the problems
of individual Members, and actually be selling this to Members
that they ought to be actively involved. And there is a good
deal of money spent in this budget, and I think that would be a
very exciting prospect for physicians who are interested in
preventive medicine, and I am wondering if we couldn't use a
significant piece of this budget to accomplish that.
I notice that between 2001 and the proposed budget there is
a huge decrease. It seems to me we could go a long ways towards
educating Members about being more intensely aware of the
importance of health relative to productivity.
Dr. Eisold. Again, I think prevention, and you and I have
had this dialogue before, prevention is really the most
important aspect of the delivery of care. Primary prevention
before things happen is key. All those capabilities are
available to us in our present configuration, and our access to
the Members is only limited by the Members' own desire to come
down and be available. I think that everybody knows how
accessible we are, and certainly it was no more visible than
during the fall. We can be everywhere at any time and we are on
a daily basis. The door is always open. And when people are
voting, they are not very far from us.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman----
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Ms. Kaptur. Would the gentleman yield for a second? I want
to endorse what you are suggesting, having served here long
enough to see what has happened to many of my friends and
colleagues over the years because of the pressure of this job
and the lack of attention to their personal health. And let me
speak on behalf of the women Members if I just might, because I
don't know if the money is in this budget for the women's
facility or not, but over the years trying to get equity in
that has been an interesting journey and we are there now. But
in terms of actual programming, we have to be programmed. We
are programmed every minute of every day and we have to get
this in.
Frankly, I even thought doing a Weight Watchers class.
Well, if we can't do it through these facilities, let us do
Weight Watchers. They seem to be able to know how to do it.
Some of our Members have gone on the wackiest diets I have ever
seen, and it is not good for their health. You talk about
prevention. If you call it diet, you will get a bigger turnout,
take my word for it, because everybody has some idea of some
diet that they are on here.
But people need to attend to their health. We need a
programmed way to do that. We have facilities, we just don't
have--what you are saying--we don't seem to have the personnel
in place or anybody interested in prevention and health that
helps us tailor programs to whatever group of individuals might
want. And I really after 2 decades of service this has been
needed for a long time. And when you look at the number of hard
cases we come up with here and all the different things that
happen to people I couldn't believe the number of people who
has collapsed intestines because of poor diets and stress. And
it just seems to me that we will save money in the long run
because we won't be having all these illnesses.
I just support you so much in what you are saying, and I
hope that there could be a more organized way of reaching out
to the Membership, including the women, so we can--and
generally you are not available at noon. I mean you have to do
it after work or before work. And so I think people would do it
if we could have a little leadership on the prevention side. So
I wanted to endorse you.
PARKING
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, if I could mention another item.
Even in your State, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
some of the major employers, even the banks, provide no cost
parking for their staff and executives. Sometime ago--this
place is so nutty, the Members believe in self flagellation and
we like to put flags out about how much we beat ourselves over
the head--we began deciding to charge people for parking spots
in the Capitol. I mean, that is really a nutty idea and I would
ask one of my financial experts who has done so much for his
own State to review that kind of idiotic policy as it relates
to the individual Members and others around here.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. If members have other
questions, please submit them for the record. We have covered
many areas here today. Gentlemen, we appreciate your
appearance. I would say to our Members it is the House Members
that are going to determine what happens in the House. These
gentlemen advise. They carry out our responsibility. But if we
want to change this, don't blame it on them. We have to change
it ourselves and direct them to do it, and I appreciate your
willingness to do that. Thank you, gentlemen.
STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Hoyer. Could I ask a brief question? The Legislative
Counsel is here, and I would like to ask about a student-loan
repayment program because we are talking about that in the
House Administration Committee. Could you comment on that how
useful that would be for your office?
Mr. Barrow. I can comment on that. Our greatest challenge
is recruitment and retention. I think it will be a big
incentive for those people to stay in our office. We lost a few
recruits in recent years because the heavy burden of student
loans is something of great concern to prospective applicants,
some of whom have loans totaling as much as $100,000.
Mr. Hoyer. And competitors are offering to assist with
those.
Mr. Barrow. At this point it is available in the Senate and
the entire executive branch. The House of Representatives is
really the only agency in the executive and legislative
branches of the Federal Government that does not participate in
a student loan repayment program.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, that is the key. The Senate is
offering this benefit and other executive agencies are offering
it, and we are starting to lose people to the Senate. And the
Speaker has been very good on getting us more competitive, but
that is something we need to focus on.
Mr. Taylor. Gentlemen, thank you very much and we
appreciate your job.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Hoyer follow.]
Public Tours
Question. At present, persons taking public tours of the Capitol
may not visit the House or Senate Galleries when the bodies are not in
session. This is disappointing to Capitol visitors. Are there plans to
permit tour groups to visit the galleries when the House are not in
session?
Response. We continue to review opening galleries to visitors when
the House is not in session. However, due to lack of USCP manpower we
are unable to adequately staff the galleries at this time. As staffing
levels increase it is our goal to re-open the galleries for visitor
access.
FIRE PROTECTION
Question. Last year, as the House Inspector General, you reported
that you were satisfied with the pace of progress on fire-protection
work in the House and the Library, such as upgrading fire-protection
systems. But you expressed concerns about progress on development of
routine inspections, testing and maintenance schedules. Are things
where they need to be in this respect, in your judgment?
Response. As we reported, the AOC had not developed a comprehensive
maintenance, inspection, and testing plan. There is an immediate need
for such a plan. To date, the AOC has not yet completed such a plan.
However, since our report, they have initiated actions for the
development of a plan. Both House and Library Superintendents have each
recently added a contracted fire protection engineer to their
respective staffs to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. In
addition, contracts have been awarded for the required annual
inspection of the fire protection systems. These are initial steps in
the right direction that must be followed through to complete the
development of a comprehensive maintenance, inspection, and testing
plan. We will continue to monitor and report on their progress.
HOUSE ART WORK
Question. What are your long-term plans for maintaining House
antiquities and artwork? How can the House improve its management of
these treasures?
Response. The key element in planning for the House collection's
well-being is a complete collection inventory, which the AOC curator is
in the process of creating. The results of this inventory--which will
include assessments of current condition and exhibition--will determine
the collection management needs of House artwork. Historical Services
has begun coordinating with the AOC curator in assisting with the task
of cataloging the House collection.
Question. How will your new curatorial staff interface with
existing functions in the Architect's office and the Senate?
Response. Long term planning for the maintenance, acquisition, and
interpretation of the House collection will require close cooperation
among Historical Services, the AOC curator, and the Senator curator.
Historical Services has initiated a series of meetings with these other
entities in order to share institutional knowledge, coordinate our
collective efforts, and prevent duplication of effort.
Question. Do you have recommendations about how to improve
procedures for accepting and maintaining portraits received by House
Committees?
Response. The curatorial function within Historical Services
creates additional resources for providing guidelines to House
committees and for monitoring the progress of acquisitions. Historical
Services is actively evaluating current procedures for accepting and
caring for committee chairman portraits in cooperation with the Fine
Arts Board and the AOC curator.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN
LAURA CAMPBELL, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND
PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
LINDA J. WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
KATHRYN B. MURPHY, BUDGET OFFICER, FINANCIAL SERVICES
Major Elements of the Library's Budget Request
Mr. Taylor. The committee will come back to order. We will
now take up the budget request of the Library of Congress.
We want to welcome Dr. James Billington, Librarian of
Congress, and (retired) General Donald Scott, Deputy Librarian
of the Congress. We are happy to have both of you here, and we
apologize that we asked you to be here at an earlier time and
the prior hearing ran a little longer than we thought. One can
never gauge the interest.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request before the committee
assumes total funds available will be $735.1 million, derived
from a variety of resources, including appropriated funds,
receipts, gift, trust, revolving funds, and reimbursable
programs. The direct appropriations request is $511.5 million
plus authority to spend receipts of $36.6 million. This
request, as were all requests from the agencies of the
legislative branch, has been adjusted by the amount required
for retirement and health insurance accrual. Thus the increase
requested is $29.9 million.
The Library is requesting funding for 169 additional FTE's.
The Library has 4,189 permanent FTE's in the current workforce.
In addition, there are 173 indefinite positions, 32 supported
in administrative jobs by receipts, 6 supported from funds
transferred from other Federal agencies, 51 supported from gift
and trust funds, and 165 supported from revolving funds. In all
the Library has a grand total of 4,785 FTEs.
Introduction of Witnesses
I would like to yield to Mr. Moran if he has any opening
statement, and then we will move on to you, Dr. Billington.
Mr. Moran. That is okay.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Dr. Billington. It is good to see
you and General Scott as always, and we would like you to
introduce your staff that have accompanied you.
Dr. Billington. Well, we have the Director of the
Congressional Research Service Daniel Mulhollan; Associate
Librarian for Library Services, Winston Tabb; our Chief of
Staff, Jo Ann Jenkins; Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters;
Laura Campbell, Associate Librarian for Strategic Initiatives.
Mr. Moran. Could you have them stand? You are just pointing
to the audience there. I would like to know who it is you are
referring to.
Dr. Billington. Laura Campbell, the Associate Librarian for
Strategic Initiatives; Rubens Medina, the Law Librarian; Frank
Kurt Cylke, the Director of the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped; Kenneth Lopez, Director
of Security; Linda Washington, Director of Integrated Support
Services; John Webster, Director of Financial Services; and
Kathryn Murphy, Budget Officer with Financial Services.
So that is the cast.
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, we will be entering your
statement in the record as well as the Register of Copyrights
and the Director of the Congressional Research Service. If you
or General Scott have a short opening statement or any comments
before we go into questions.
Dr. Billington. I think we are ready to answer questions
directly, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of the Librarian, Register of
Copyrights and the Director of the Congressional Research
Service follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HIRING SYSTEM--IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
Mr. Taylor. There are a number of programs, events, and
meetings that the Library provides that they invite all of us
to attend, and I think it is very important for Congress and
the Library of Congress. I urge all of you to attend those
meetings if you possibly can because they are wonderful
opportunities for us to see the Library as well as the
multitude of people around the world that the Library
communicates with, works with and serves.
Dr. Billington, the committee is aware of what seems to be
an ongoing implementation problem with your new automated
hiring system and, because of these problems, you realigned in
the current fiscal year almost $15 million from your salary and
benefit accounts to contract service accounts to get the work
accomplished, for which the committee provided personnel FTE
funding. This $15 million is double the amount provided for new
FTEs for the current fiscal year and is greater than the amount
provided for new FTEs for the prior three fiscal years.
For the benefit of the members, can you explain how this
system was selected and any other comments you would like to
make about it?
Dr. Billington. I am sorry, I am not quite sure. You are
talking about reprogramming or the current appropriation
request?
Mr. Taylor. We are talking about the automated hiring
system.
Dr. Billington. Well, I think, in brief, we have been
implementing a new automated hiring system, which we wanted to
achieve a variety of goals. We wanted to expedite the hiring
process. We wanted to make sure that Amended Appendix B was
fully comported with and exemplified in the new system, and we
wanted to have an efficient, much more rapid hiring system than
we have had in the past. We actually subscribed to a system, we
did not purchase a system. We had a variety of things we had to
do in a fairly short time span in order to satisfy the Amended
Appendix B requirement. We had to move very fast.
As with implementing any new system, there have been some
problems and we are managing them. We have appointed a project
manager, and General Scott has been in charge of implementing
this. It was slow getting started. It has now gathered
considerable momentum, and we are both continuing to hire and
gather momentum and, at the same time, evaluating and
developing standard operating procedures and other matters so
we can evaluate this system against others to see if we want to
continue with this particular service.
But I will let General Scott get into the details because
he has been in charge of this.
SYSTEM SELECTION GOALS
General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Mr. Chairman, we
do have a new system that we are putting in place and, as Dr.
Billington has just expressed, we did have some unanticipated
automation, as well as, process problems in addition to those
we anticipated. Nevertheless, the Library has been able to hire
167 new people under the new system. We expect that with the
apparatus and the evaluation and analysis process that we have
in place right now, that we will be able to hire nearly all of
the people that we need for the rest of 2002--this calendar
year.
You asked, for the benefit of the members, why and how did
we select this system. Basically, there was three goals in
seeking a new system. One, the Library needed a system that met
all the functional requirements of the negotiated settlement
agreement between the Cook Class Plaintiffs and the Library's
Amended Appendix B. Two, we did not want the system to be cost-
prohibitive. And, three, we wanted a system that could be
implemented in a rather short period of time.
With those three goals in mind, we knew that we could not
build a system in-house--that would be too cost-prohibitive--so
we evaluated several systems that are already in the
marketplace. We looked at three systems: Avue, the Office of
Personnel Management's Human Resources Manager, and Resumix.
Because of the three goals that we wanted to meet, we picked
Avue because they were the only vendor that had a system that
met the Amended Appendix B requirements, and they were willing
to work with us to make the system as responsive to our needs
as it possibly could be. That is why we chose that system.
Mr. Taylor. I have some questions that I will submit for
the record regarding the new automated hiring system.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Library's Automated Hiring System
Question. Were your system requirements defined prior to the
selection of the Avue system?
Response. A written system requirements document as defined by
contracting standards had not been developed. However, functional
requirements were identified by the Library. Key factors in determining
the contracting of an automated hiring system included: meeting all the
functional requirements of the draft Amended Appendix B of the Cook
Settlement Agreement (content-valid process), reducing the total time
to bring new staff on board after posting a position, (current system
was taking 178 days), operating within the Library's current budget,
and becoming operational in a rather short period of time--since the
Library only had three months from the court order to implement a
system.
Due to these goals, the Library had to focus on off-the-shelf
systems, as an in-house or fully customized system could not meet the
dollar and time constraints. Avue was the only vendor that had a system
that met all these requirements and that expressed any willingness to
modify their system to meet the unique needs of the Library within the
time frame imposed upon the Library. Avue also indicated that it could
reduce the average number of days required to fill a position to 60
days, a reduction of 118 days from the Library's current system.
Therefore, Avue was chosen and the Library's contract was an add-on to
the existing contract of Veteran's Affairs Department, which was using
the General Services Administration as a contracting officer.
Question. If so, what were the requirements?
Response. Based on the key factors, and guided by a Hiring
Improvement Plan, as well as by the General Accounting Office's
guidelines for automated hiring systems, the Library established the
following functional requirements:
Maintain the Library's position descriptions and job
analyses.
Enable selecting officials to update or create new
position descriptions.
Create draft vacancy announcements, applicant
questionnaires, crediting plans, job analysis worksheets, interview
questions and benchmark anchors.
Enable users to apply online.
Rate and rank applicants' questionnaires.
Notify online applicants of their eligibility
determinations.
Generate a list of the highest-ranking applicants plus
tied scores for the interview.
Maintain all documentation for content-validity and
compile a report at the conclusion of the selection process.
Question. Have you reached a point that this system is not meeting
your requirements?
Response. The Library is in the process of determining whether this
system can meet its needs in the long-term. While the system has been
able to fill selections, the mechanics of the hiring process have been
troublesome.
Using the new system, the Library has filled 167 positions as of
April 17, 2002. The Library expects to reach its projected hiring
targets this year and surpass last year's hiring numbers--172
selections in FY 2001.
The completion of the Library's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
and Customer Requirements Document (CRD) will enable us to make a
decision as to what system will best serve the Library. The Project
Team's review of these documents will be completed in June, at which
time the Library will decide how to address its hiring process in the
future.
Question. What requirements have not been met?
Response. The Library is in the process of determining whether this
system can meet all the requirements of the Library and until that
review is completed, it is difficult to know all the requirements that
cannot be met. As noted, Avue and the Library have worked very hard to
resolve many of the problems identified to date and will continue this
process.
One area in which Avue has not been able to meet functional
requirements is benchmark anchors. Benchmark anchors are developed by
the subject matter experts during job analysis and are used as
evaluation standards to score candidates' responses to the interview
questions. The Library has developed and continues to use a workaround
for the benchmark anchor issue. Recently, this functionality became
available, at no cost, as part of Avue's scheduled release of its
software in spring 2002. The Library is currently evaluating this new
release to see if it meets the Library's needs in the area of benchmark
anchors.
Question. What were/are your implementation problems?
Response. The Library's initial priority was to install a content-
valid automated hiring system that reduced the time to hire quality
employees and resolved outstanding Cook Class Litigation issues in an
expedited manner. To that end, the Library negotiated Amended Appendix
B which created a new hiring process for the Library.
The constraints imposed by the new process and the pressures on the
Library to get the new process quickly up and running to fill urgent
staffing needs have complicated implementation for the following
reasons:
The new hiring process differed radically from the old
one; and Avue was an entirely new system for the Library. Both the new
process and the new system required new and different roles for all
staff involved in the hiring process. Training on the new process and
the new system proved far more complex and time-consuming than
anticipated.
The new negotiated hiring process changed the way in which
applicants' qualifications are assessed. The new process relies
primarily on a content-valid applicant questionnaire to determine
whether an applicant should be considered. Because Library managers
were unfamiliar with the process of creating an effective applicant
questionnaire, many of the early candidates were not effectively
screened. As a result, early candidate referral pools were much larger
than anticipated and contained candidates who did not possess a
satisfactory level of expertise. This created additional workload and
frustration on the part of the hiring managers.
The manner in which Avue is designed to create and
maintain position descriptions is very different from the way the
Library has traditionally created and maintained position descriptions.
Since Avue uses generic tasks to describe a position, the system lacked
the content to describe many of the Library's unique and specialized
positions. As a result, Library managers using Avue have not obtained
the time-saving benefits that Avue was designed to produce and have
experienced significant difficulty and frustration entering the data
they feel necessary to accurately describe the position being filled.
As addressed by the Inspector General, the Library did not
apply adequate project management tools to the implementation of the
new process and the Avue system. There was no defined methodology for
resolving the problems and addressing the concerns that occur in any
new system or process implementation, which proved to be particularly
acute under the Library's aggressive implementation timeline. Amended
Appendix B, dated January 5, 2001, was to be implemented by March 1,
2001. This timeline not only compressed implementation, but also
increased pressure to abbreviate steps required for effective project
management.
The Human Resources Services staff was tasked with
implementing the new hiring process, managing the implementation of the
Avue system, and learning how to use the new Avue system, all at the
same time. Additionally, from March 1 to May 31, 2001, the HRS staff
encountered an enormous workload in completing the vacancies begun
under the previous hiring process. HRS was not sufficiently staffed to
meet the additional demands of managing the implementation. As the
Inspector General's preliminary findings indicate, standard operating
procedures were not developed nor was there a fully operational Help
Desk to provide assistance for managers and applicants.
Library users and job applicants identified several
functionalities that they wanted either changed or created. Avue was
responsive in making most of those changes during the last several
months of 2001, but the lag slowed implementation.
On October 10, 2001, the Library designated a new Project Manager
and Team to assume responsibility for the Avue contract, to work
exclusively on identifying any remaining issues through a post-
implementation review and to develop a stronger system requirements
document. The Project Team is currently conducting a review to
determine what aspects of the new hiring system are working and which
ones will need to be revised to improve the process.
Question. We understand that you have recently taken steps to
address and correct problems you are having with the system. Could you
explain what you have done or are doing.
Response. The Library has taken various steps to address and
correct system problems. A process audit by the Inspector General has
been requested. A special team has been designated headed by a senior-
level Project Manager, to review and resolve problems associated with
the new automated hiring system and to implement audit recommendations.
On a continual basis, the Library is working with the vendor to
customize the system to meet requirements identified to date, and
tracking and resolving problems as they arise. The Library monitors
hiring results on a weekly basis.
In order to assist in evaluating the automated hiring system, a
draft set of customer requirements and standard operating procedures
that identify the Library's hiring system needs have been developed.
When these documents are finalized, they will be a valuable tool in
evaluating the automated hiring system. Additionally, the Library is
also performing an evaluation of the hiring system (both Appendix B and
the automated system) to determine if it meets the Library's needs or
needs to be modified or replaced to achieve the hiring goals of the
Library.
Question. Provide to the Committee your hiring plan which reflects
meeting your objective of working off the hiring backlog by summer.
Response. As discussed, the Library has taken various steps to
address and correct system problems. Despite the early problems, the
Library has filled 167 jobs during the first seven months of FY 2002,
compared to 172 selections in FY 2001. We are confident, because of the
process now in place, that we have a system that will allow the Library
to fill the jobs it requested in FY 2002 by the end of the year and to
be ready to fill the jobs requested in FY 2003. Our statistics reflect
growing momentum towards achieving these hiring goals.
To facilitate hiring, the office of Human Resources Services (HRS)
has hired additional staff in key areas. Service Units Administrative
Officers (AO) have been certified and trained by the HRS Director to
perform and facilitate the job analysis documentation process, which
has sped up the time required to complete a hire. Controls have been
put in place to ensure that the AO in the service units do not have
access to applicant data. In addition, the work currently being done to
create position descriptions in Avue can be used again, reducing the
time required to create and certify position descriptions in the
future. Finally, the project team's hands on work, coupled with the
service units' growing experience with Avue, continues to improve the
use of the system and the success of filling vacancies in a timely
manner.
Question. What was the total cost of the system?
Response. The Library's subscription service has annual costs of
approximately $415 thousand a year ($405 thousand for the subscription
and $10 thousand for the GSA fee). The start-up costs were
approximately $280 thousand.
Question. What are your projections of the total costs (contractor
and in-house) required to correct the Avue problems?
Response. The total costs to date for correcting Avue problems is
$310 thousand. No additional costs are projected at this time. However,
the financial impact of the Project Team's evaluation of the hiring
system will not be known until after the evaluation is completed and
recommendations are proposed.
Question. What has been your cost to date for correcting the
problems?
Response. As problems have been noted, Avue has worked to resolve
them and has not charged the Library. However, additional costs have
been incurred to meet the functional requirements and to expedite the
hiring process. To date, that additional cost has been approximately
$310 thousand. This funding supported Avue consulting services to
augment the HRS workforce ($231K); General Services Administration
service fee ($6K); development of interview questions and benchmark
anchors ($43K); content analysis ($4K); and job analysis support for
the Congressional Research Service ($26K).
Question. We don't recall receiving any reprogramming request for
the procurement of the system. Was there one made?
Response. The Library did not purchase an automated hiring system;
it purchased a subscription service. The Library had sufficient funds
in its Human Resources Services budget to fund this subscription
service.
Question. Were any other users of the system surveyed prior to your
selection?
Response. Yes. Prior to selection, the Library surveyed the
Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
Department of Justice. The survey methodology consisted of numerous
telephone interviews. In addition, the Library's Office of Human
Resources Services (HRS) also held meetings with human resource and
information technology professionals from these agencies to discuss
their experiences with the Avue classification module. The agencies
contacted by HRS initially reported very positive results from the
system and from Avue's staff and their support.
Question. What if any other systems were evaluated before making
the selection for Avue?
Response. The Library evaluated several systems including:
Avue
Office of Personnel Management's Human Resources Manager
Resumix
Avue was the only vendor that had a system that met the Amended
Appendix B functional requirements and that expressed any willingness
to modify their system to meet the unique needs of the Library within
the time frame imposed upon the Library.
Question. Are there any other systems available that will meet your
requirements in order to get your hiring process on track, or are you
so far into this system that you cannot start over with another system?
Response. The Library is currently evaluating other vendor's
systems, as well as the current system, to determine which will most
effectively meet the Library's needs.
Question. What was the number of vacancies prior to installation of
the Avue?
Response. In FY 2001, the Library had approximately 270
professional/administrative vacancies.
Question. You state that the system was to reduce the average
number of days needed to fill a vacancy. What was the average number of
days needed to fill a vacancy prior to Avue?
Response. Historical data (from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999)
indicates that, on average, 178 calendar days were needed to fill a
vacancy. This number tracks from the day of posting the vacancy
announcement, including the number of days in the posting period,
through the final processing of the selection action.
Question. What was the projected numbers of days after installation
of the Avue system?
Response. Under Avue, the projected number of days to fill a
vacancy after posting is 60. However, based on vacancies filled to
date, the median elapsed time from vacancy announcement to selection
decision is 84 days; average elapsed time from vacancy announcement to
selection decision is 95 days.
Question. How many positions have you filled, by fiscal year, since
implementation of the new system?
Response. From March 2001 (when the Library's new hiring process
was implemented) through September 30, 2001, the Library made 5
selections through the new system. This was in addition to the 167
selections made under the former hiring system, resulting in a total of
172 selections in FY 2001.
During the first seven months of FY 2002, the Library made 167
selections through the new hiring system.
Question. How does this compare with prior years?
Response. The Library has averaged 189 selections per year for the
five-year period from FY 1996 to FY 2000. In FY 2001, 172 selections
were made. The Library has made 167 selections during the first seven
months of this fiscal year, and should exceed the five-year average of
189 selections.
Question. The Committee understands that the system only covers
positions in the professional, administrative, and supervisory
technical fields. What percentage of the Library's work force are in
those categories?
Response. Approximately 61.3 percent of the Library's work force is
in professional, administrative, and supervisory technical positions.
Question. How are positions in the balance of the workforce being
filled?
Response. The Library is filling the remaining positions either
through an automated system processed through the Office of Personnel
Management, or through the traditional hiring process managed by the
Library's Human Resources Office.
Question. What other government agencies use the Avue system?
Response. According to Avue, thirty-three federal departments and
agencies use Avue's classification, staffing and/or workforce
management products. The United States Coast Guard, the Forest Service,
and six agencies of the Department of Justice employ both the
classification and staffing products (e.g. the products used by the
Library to classify positions and fill vacancies).
Question. Have other users experienced the same problems as the
Library?
Response. Some agencies, who initially reported positive results,
have more recently reported unfavorable experiences with Avue and its
solutions. However, the Library's experience with Avue products differs
from other agencies. It should be noted that the version of Avue being
used by other federal agencies differs in many aspects from the
customized system that the Library uses to be in compliance with
Amended Appendix B. Therefore, even if there were no problems
experienced by the other Avue users, their track record would not be a
good indication or prediction for the problems encountered by the
Library.
ARREARAGE REDUCTION
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. One of the major priorities for
fiscal 2003 is to continue to work off the arrearage reduction.
Are you on target with the revised total arrearage goals
approved by Congress?
Dr. Billington. We are, Mr. Chairman. We are 56 percent
ahead on printed materials. The printed arrearages are 25
percent ahead of target for special materials; that is to say,
with the revised time schedule that we presented in the year
2000 when we implemented an Integrated Library System and
realized that the dates were going to have to be extended. But,
even with the implementation of that system, we are
substantially ahead in both areas.
Mr. Taylor. You have requested 14 additional FTE's and
$896,000 in contract support funds to eliminate the arrearage
of in-process materials. Could you maybe define what is in
process materials?
Dr. Billington. Yes. Process materials are materials from
the time they come to the Library's loading dock, until the
time they reach the person, who either catalogs or describes
them. That is a process period and that is a different problem
from the arrearage problem. If you want more details on that
and why that is different, I would call on our Associate
Librarian.
Mr. Taylor. I would also ask the question why can't
contract staff rather than regular staff handle this work load?
Mr. Tabb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This request for dealing
with the in-process backlog has two aspects. One is contract
funds, which we need on a one-year basis in order to reduce the
existing backlogs, to get stuff moved out of the acquisitions
area and into the cataloging areas where it could be worked on.
In addition, we need to have 14 permanent staff so we do not
have in-process backlogs grow in the future. So it is really a
two-part process, one for permanent staff to be sure we don't
have the situation again and the other, the one-time infusion
of contract funds, to work off the current backlog.
NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
(NDIIPP)
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, you anticipate delivering the
national digital information infrastructure and preservation
plan to Congress this year. Do you have any insight as to the
role the Library will play in this national initiative.
Dr. Billington. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are first of all
playing a convening role, a coordinating and convening role in
bringing together an unprecedented array of people from the
private sector and from other great national repositories, and
other interested parties and stakeholders. So that is the main
role we are playing. And of course we are eventually going to
play an important role as one of the central repositories in
this as well as in the determination of the so-called metadata
of the information so we can store, catalog, and be able to
retrieve these digital materials.
This is an immensely complicated and extremely important
assignment that the Congress gave us last year, as you know,
Mr. Chairman. It means on the one hand we have to devise and
figure out with all of the stakeholders--and we have had
meetings--more than 200 people have been participating in this
so far, so we can draw up a master plan that will outline how
we are going to develop partnerships between organizations and
different parts of the economy and of the archival and
educational community that have never collaborated before. Our
main point is to develop the plan which we hope we will be able
to deliver later this year to the Congress. That was the first
stage of the three stages in developing this national program
that we were commissioned to do.
At the same time, we have to strengthen our technological
backbone, which accounts for some of the Library's budget
request. Not that it is not part of this process, but we have
to do it in parallel because it is very clear that we are going
to play an important, by no means the exclusive role. The
challenge at this stage is to develop and define the
partnerships that will then enable us to move to the second
stage.
The 5 million that was appropriated last year is enabling
us to have these meetings. We have had a meeting of these
people, involving some of the major figures of the industry, as
well as others in a meeting in May, and then another one of
three two-day meetings with different groups in November. We
are inventorying all of the meeting discussions, and we will
develop a plan. Then that will release $20 million. This is
already appropriated money, as you are aware. That will release
the $20 million for the partnerships.
So those possible partnerships will be largely identified
in this convening process that we are doing in stage one. So we
play a very simple yet critical role. It is going to be a
distributed national program. There will be a large number of
participants and in a way they will have some flexibility to
define their own roles.
But what we have met with, Mr. Chairman, is extraordinary
enthusiasm. We have gotten participation, as I say, by all
kinds of people. We have not only the 200 people who have
actually participated in dialogues, but we have a 26-member
advisory board with extraordinary participation and enthusiasm
in helping to define how we can have a national program that
will involve all the different elements by the way of the
public sector.
There were four key participants specified in the
legislation, as you may recall. We were supposed to convene it
in the Library of Congress with the head of the National
Archives, the Scientific Advisor of the White House and the
Secretary of Commerce. So that is a core group, but we are
involving a whole host of other Federal institutions as well as
participants in the private sector. So it is a major
undertaking, and I think a very promising one. It is being met
with a very warm and enthusiastic and participatory response in
the private sector.
RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT CENTER/PROGRAM
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, the Russian Leadership
Development Center has requested $10 million for the operation
of the center during fiscal year 2003. You are Chairman of the
board of trustees for the center, and I can certainly testify
to a lot of the work that has been done. But could you comment
on the success of the program and how you have measured the
success of the program?
Dr. Billington. I think it has been extraordinarily
successful. Qualitatively it has received enormous attention
particularly in the local press. We have had close to 800
different American communities participate in it. Average age
of people is 38, more than a third of them women, something
totally new from this very dynamic young leadership group whose
whole political formation has been in the post-Soviet period.
It is probably one of the most heavily evaluated exchange
program, I think, certainly in the history of exchanges. The
participants have questionnaires that they fill out. They have
had 10 alumni meetings all over Russia. The local community
press in this country has given an enormous amount of attention
and publicity, and now that we have a separate entity in the
Legislative Branch that is in charge of this, we are going to
be doing an even more sophisticated evaluation, probably on-
line because we have a Web site, of all of the participants all
over Russia. We already benefitted from the evaluation of the
first year by moving in the second year toward much more
focused groups and this year with heavy focus on the rule of
law, which everybody sees as the essential element in
developing a dynamic economy as well as an accountable
political system.
So this is a process that is continuously evaluated, and
now that there is such an excellent board that the Congress has
created for this independent entity still housed
administratively within the Library of Congress, I think we
have a very good chance of keeping it and improving that
program.
Mr. Taylor. I have a question that I submit to you to be
answered for the record.
[The question and response follows:]
Russian Leadership Development Center
Question. Currently the program provides for emerging political
leaders of the Russian Federation to visit the United States to gain
first hand knowledge of the principles of democracy and market economy.
What are your views of allowing emerging political leaders in federal
and state government within the United States visit Russia to study
political, business, and non governmental organizations of the Russian
Federation?
Response. The Open World Program has over 4,000 alumni in Russia
from all 89 regions. The program is seeking private funding--with some
success to date--to support modest programs that would allow alumni in
the various regions to form associations or informal networks among
themselves and with other Russians who have visited the U.S. under the
aegis of other American programs. The program also publishes and
distributes an alumni bulletin in Russian and English to encourage
communication within Russia and with U.S. hosts. There is also a dual
language website.
A small number of our U.S. hosts have visited Russia (without
financial support) and met with the delegations they have hosted. The
most successful of these efforts is focused around professional
development in the field of work that was the focus of the original
Open World Program in the U.S. For example, two of our American host
judges who have participated in the U.S. Rule of Law Program recently
traveled to Moscow and St. Petersburg and conducted seminars on such
topics as criminal proceedings and bankruptcy. Each of the resulting
meetings was the largest gathering of Open World alumni in each city;
alumni also brought professional colleagues (judges, attorneys) to
participate. The session in St. Petersburg was also widely covered in
the local media.
Participants for such a program would have to be carefully chosen
in order to utilize such travel for meaningful alumni professional
development. Funding for such a pilot is not in the budget available
for the Open World Program as approved by the Center's board of
trustees in March 2002.
DIGITIZED ITEMS
Mr. Taylor. I certainly want to commend you on your
digitization work at the Library. I understand you have
digitized just under 8 million items. In addition, you have
worked with foreign governments in digitizing such things as
maps, books and other materials, I certainly commend you on
that. I think if this is integrated into our educational
system, it will be a major compliment to the Library of
Congress and we will be fortunate that you are heading that
effort.
I have a number of questions I will submit for the record,
but I yield now to Mr. Moran for his questions.
[Following are the questions to be answered for the record
from Chairman Taylor:]
Integrated Library System (ILS)
Question. The Committee has provided $15.5 million over the past 5
years for the Integrated Library System (ILS). This year you have
requested another $911 thousand, which brings the total to $16.4
million, of No-Year funds for the continued acquisition and partial
support of the ILS. What was the total projected cost of the ILS?
Response. In FY 1998, the Library requested $15.8 million, the
first installment of a seven-year implementation budget (FY98-04). The
Library's request was based on estimates developed in 1996, prior to
the selection of an ILS vendor. Upon contract award to Endeavor
Information Systems Inc., as planned, in FY 2000 the Library presented
a revised total projected cost estimate totaling $17.7 million. Of this
amount $15.5 million has been provided through FY 2002 and $911
thousand is requested in FY 2003.
Question. Are you currently over or under budget?
Response. The Library costs are consistent and in line with the FY
2000 revised total projected cost of $17.7 million.
Question. Why are these funds required on a No-Year basis?
Response. The Library needs the flexibility of No-Year funds so
that we can obligate the funds at the point when (1) the Library and
vendor have determined the most effective approach to satisfy the ever-
increasing demand for public catalog access; and (2) the Library is
ready to start entering detailed serials holdings statements into the
ILS as part of the inventory project approved Congress in FY 2002.
Question. What is the current unobligated balance of prior year
funds appropriated for this system?
Response. Of the ILS funds appropriated between FY 1998 and FY
2001, $1.4 million remains available for obligation. The $1.4 million
will be obligated for additional hardware, software development,
maintenance and contracting to ensure that we will be able to meet the
public demand for the Library's Catalog.
Question. What is the total amount needed to complete the project?
Response. A total of $2.2 million is needed to complete the project
of which $911 thousand is requested in FY 2003. The balance will be in
the Library's FY 2004 budget request.
Question. The Committee is pleased to hear that the funding we
provided for the Integrated Library System (ILS) has provided
significant operational improvements such as improved book labeling,
gathering individual production statics, and streamlined workflows.
What have the individual production statistics shown you?
Response. Productivity data has indicated many areas of significant
improvements in Library operations as well as areas that need more
attention. Binding productivity has surpassed pre-ILS levels for
several quarters. Serials cataloging productivity has improved steadily
over the past few quarters and is now almost at pre-ILS levels.
Monograph cataloging productivity in the Cataloging Directorate is at
all-time highs, having increased by 8.67 percent according to one
measure. (Total cataloging production, however, has not returned to
pre-baseline levels, as the Cataloging directorate has nearly 200 fewer
arrearage reduction positions filled than were filled at the beginning
of the arrearage reduction project.) Because the ILS check-in system
captures much more useful information than could be recorded in the
manual system, productivity for serial check-in is substantially lower
than the baseline, indicating a need to add serial technicians to
manage the increasing serials workload while also capitalizing on the
capabilities of the ILS.
Question. Have you discovered areas of weakness and strength in
your operations?
Response. Yes:
The constantly-increasing popularity of the Library of
Congress Online Catalog on the World Wide Web has created a strain on
the system. The Library's customers want round-the-clock, unfettered
Web access to our catalog. The Library is gratified by this
overwhelmingly favorable customer response to the access, made possible
by the ILS. We are actively working with Endeavor Information Systems,
Inc., our ILS vendor, to increase the current maximum number of
simultaneous log-ons from outside the Library and Congressional offices
via the Web.
The ILS implementation effort proved that, by working
together, Library staff could accomplish a large-scale transition from
fragmented legacy systems to an integrated system on time and within
budget--including obtaining needed hardware, making the transition from
the OS/2 platform to the Windows platform, training all staff who use
the ILS, keeping the larger community outside the Library informed of
our progress, and using the system for library acquisitions,
cataloging, circulation, online public access, and serials check-in
functions.
The success of the Library units in working together, and
the adaptability and tenacity of our dedicated staff, position the
Library well to mount the integrated, agency-wide effort that is needed
to continue improving both the ILS and our business processes and to
meet the challenges of the digital future.
Data from the ILS validate the efficiency of the Library's
whole-resource approach to cataloging, in which the whole book, sound
recording, or other resource is cataloged by a single individual or
within a single team. Cataloging productivity has reached all-time
highs.
Serials management was known from the beginning to be one
of the ILS functions that would require more development by the vendor.
Because ILS check-in is more complex and accomplishes more tasks,
online check-in of serial issues in the ILS is slower than manual
check-in. However, the ILS also provides significant benefits: enhanced
security for publications through better inventory control, enhanced
searching to determine whether a title is retained by LC, worldwide
dissemination of holdings data, instant data about the acquisitions
status of a title, and automatic generation of labels.
The ILS implementation, even while generating useful
statistics, such as individual and team cataloging statistics and
reports on invoice payments, has highlighted the need for more
consistent statistical reporting across Library units.
Question. Have you been able to make adjustments in your operations
and/or workflows that have increased productivity?
Reponse. Yes. For example:
The ILS permits distributed check-in of serials. The
Acquisitions Directorate is now in the process of transferring serials
check-in responsibility to the divisions that will permanently house
the material as soon as it arrives at the Library. A pilot project in
FY 2001 demonstrated, that decentralizing check-in improved
productivity and decreased throughput time. Decentralization also
allows for better tracking and control of serial issues from the time
they come into the Library.
The upgrade of the ILS software, in February 2002, made it
possible to easily resolve problems in distributing records to the
bibliographic utilities and other Cataloging Distribution Service
customers.
The Special Materials Cataloging Division now uses the ILS
bulk import feature to add 30,000 to 40,000 initial bibliographic
control records a year from other systems to the ILS with little or no
keying by staff--compared to about 3,000 prior to the ILS
implementation.
The Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound
Division is now beginning to import Copyright Office data for moving
images (film, etc.) to the ILS using bulk import.
The Library can now use technicians rather than
professional librarians to search the bibliographic utilities and
correctly download cataloging copy from other libraries.
The ILS holding and item record features have enabled the
book catalogers to eliminate backlogs of second copies that need to be
added to the Library's book collections.
The ILS has enabled records to be created in the
Electronic Preassigned Card Number program for self-published materials
with far less human intervention than was previously required. This
functionality was so successful that the Library discontinued the
paper-based Preassigned Card Number program in January 2002.
The ILS permits proposals for new and changed subject
headings to be submitted directly online, saving time and distribution
of multiple paper copies.
Prior to the ILS, Cataloging Directorate staff had to
release complete records to the main database manually, one record at a
time. The ILS has eliminated this final step for most records, yielding
a savings of two FTE Cataloging Directorate technician positions, as
already reported to Congress.
Projected savings of $500,000, from eliminating duplicate
serial subscriptions, was reflected in the Library's FY 2003 budget.
See page 56 of the Library's FY 2003 Budget Justification.
Question. Give us some examples of operational changes resulting
from the data provided by the ILS.
Response. In addition to those changes described, the Library has
either begun or is about to begin implementing the following changes
based on ILS functionality:
The Library is just beginning to use electronic data
interchange (EDI) e-commerce technology, based on ILS functionality, to
pay serials invoices. Preliminary work indicates that EDI will
significantly increase productivity in this area.
The improved efficiency of distributed check-in will
enable the Library to use the ILS to develop a regular serials claiming
program. The Acquisitions Directorate has begun work on a project to
begin serials claiming in October, 2002.
Operational changes using the ILS have greatly improved collections
security:
By far the largest operational change to date is the use
of the ILS to provide inventory control--a control that the Library
essentially did not have prior to ILS implementation.
Prior to implementation of the ILS, the Library did not
prepare preliminary cataloging records for the 55,000+ sound recordings
received through the Copyright Office each year. The ILS enables
creation of initial bibliographic control records on receipt for
currently received commercial sound recordings from Copyright. This
capability improves both retrievability and the physical security of
in-process sound recordings.
The ILS permits the Cataloging Directorate to label
hardcover books as part of the cataloging process, reducing the need
for moving materials to the Binding and Collections Care Division and
improving the security of the items.
Holdings and item records are created in the acquisitions
units and the Copyright Office, bringing additions to the collections
under inventory control as soon after receipt as possible.
The ILS has provided improvements to cataloging efficiency and
quality:
The ILS automatically checks for typographical and
structural errors in data.
The ILS facilitates the inexpensive inclusion of full tables of
contents in selected Electronic Cataloging in Publication records,
which are now about one third of our total Cataloging in Publication
production. Access to Tables of contents is one of the enhancements to
catalog records most demanded by our users.
The bulk import feature of the ILS permitted the Library
to convert from the outmoded Wade-Giles system for romanizing Chinese
characters in its catalog to the pinyin system, which is now the
worldwide standard, and to lead the conversion to pinyin throughout the
North American library community. Approximately 200,000 bibliographic
records and 158,000 authority records were converted to pinyin and made
available to the nation's librarians in cooperation with the
bibliographic utilities.
The Preservation Directorate is also using the ILS to improve its
programs:
Creation of initial bibliographic control and item records
for materials sent out for commercial preservation microfilming gives
greater control over what has left the Library and more precise
estimates of return dates from contractor.
The ILS enables staff to report holdings of Master
negatives and service negatives, reducing potential damage to the
costly Master negatives.
The ILS enables staff to note on-line the condition of any
new receipts that were damaged by U.S. Postal Service irradiation since
October 2001.
The Library has benefitted greatly from the ILS circulation
capability:
Patrons can use free text fields to fully describe the
materials they need.
Patrons themselves can check the status of their requests
in the LC Online Catalog.
Supervisory and managerial staff can easily monitor all of
the Call Slip queues, thus ensuring timely service to our users.
The ILS Call Slip function has made it possible for
certain non-staff user groups (e.g., patrons in the four Area Studies
reading rooms and the Kluge Center) to place book requests on-line.
Some of the Library's heaviest users (e.g., Supreme Court,
the Woodrow Wilson Center) can now send their requests directly to the
Collections Access, Loan and Management Division, relieving the Loan
Reference staff of this workload.
Lewis and Clark Exhibition
Question. There is a request for $789 thousand of no-year funds for
the Lewis and Clark Exhibition in order to complete the bulk of the
work of locating exhibition material, conducting research, and
designing and preparing and exhibition to open in early September 2003.
If the exhibit opens in early September 2003 why are these funds being
requested on a no-year basis?
Response. No-year funding will provide greater certainty and
flexibility in planning and budgeting over the three-year period to be
covered by this request. Expenditures for the exhibition at the Library
will be required in FY 2003, as will some costs of organizing the
traveling version of the exhibition. Because we may not know precisely
which venues will be included in the traveling exhibit before FY 2004,
we cannot obligate all of the necessary funds in FY 2003.
Veterans History Project
Question. You have received a generous grant from AARP (American
Association for Retired Persons) of $3 million over three years for the
Veterans History Project. In your budget you have requested 6 FTEs as
well for this project. Will these positions only be required for three
years?
Response. The requested six FTEs are needed on a permanent basis
because the Project, as unanimously authorized by Congress, has no
limit of time. The FTEs will:
Support the expansion of public and partner engagement
through instructional materials and training workshops.
Perform curatorial work on the collection and on-site
exhibition of materials.
Process collections to avoid creating new arrearages and
to promote quick access.
Respond to the thousands of inquiries flooding into the
Library from partners and the public.
Train partner repositories to enter information into
database.
Update continuously the Project Website.
Support the extension of the program into colleges,
universities, and high schools.
Packaging Collections
Question. The Library has requested 35 additional FTEs at a cost of
$1.7 million to support the preparation, packaging, and stabilization
of select rare and special collections in advance of their relocation
to the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center and to Fort Meade
Module #2. When will the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center
(NAVCC) be available for occupancy?
Response. The current schedule calls for excavation at Culpeper to
begin this summer, with the following completion dates projected for
each of the NAVCC's three building components:
The existing Collections storage building: AOC/LOC
acceptance for move-in scheduled for fourth quarter of calendar year
2004.
The new Nitrate storage vaults: AOC/LOC acceptance for
move-in scheduled for June 2005.
The new Conservation building (all office spaces and the
two MBRS laboratories): AOC/LOC acceptance for move-in scheduled for
June 2005.
Question. What is the schedule for moving collections into the
Audio-Visual facility?
Response. Current plans call for collections to be moved into the
collections building beginning in late 2004 and into the nitrate vaults
beginning in summer 2005.
Question. How many employees will be located at the new Center?
Response. Approximately 140 employees will be located at the Center
during its initial years of occupancy.
Question. Since the Facility is located in Culpeper, Virginia, are
you anticipating relocation costs for personnel who will be assigned to
the new Facility?
Response. Yes, we will be required to pay relocation costs for
staff whom the Library reassigns to Culpeper.
Question. At this time you have not even moved into Book Module #1.
Don't you think your request for FTE's to prepare material for Module
#2 is a little premature?
Response. No. The library expects Module #2 construction to begin
next year. To be fully ready to occupy this much-needed space, it is
critical that we begin the arduous task of preparing and stabilizing
thousands of fragile special collections materials (rare books, paper
and parchment manuscripts, maps, etc.) of all shapes and sizes for
relocation to Module #2. Most of these special collections materials
are rare and fragile, and extra care must be taken to prepare them for
the move. This work will require three years. To fully and responsibly
prepare these unique materials for relocation, work on this project
must begin no later than FY 2003.
Question. Why do you need permanent FTE's for this project; can't
this work be contracted out?
Response. Due to the high value of the collections that are being
prepared for the move to Module #2, it is important that individuals
who are well trained in Library of Congress preservation procedures
undertake this important work. However, the Library is not requesting
that the personnel for this project be permanent, but rather are
requesting full-time equivalents for three years, which is the
projected duration of the project.
Cataloging Distribution Service
Question. The operating budget of the Cataloging Distribution
Service is based on receipts from outside customers and $846 thousand
in appropriations for products and services provided to internal
Library customers. What are the products and services provided to
internal Library customers?
Response. Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) products and
services provided to internal Library customers include:
published versions of Library of Congress (LC) cataloging
tools and documentation in print and electronic formats;
data files and diagnostic reports from CDS's MARC
(machine-readable cataloging) distribution databases;
other publishing and distribution-related services that
support LC's national library role in the development and dissemination
of cataloging records and standards.
Question. Has there ever been an evaluation/review of the products
and services provided that equates to $846 thousand of products being
received?
Response. Yes, there was an evaluation/review in October 2001. The
products and services delivered by the Cataloging Distribution Service
to internal Library customers in FY 2001 totaled $882 thousand.
Question. When receipts are less than anticipated what actions do
you take to stay within budget?
Response. When receipts are less than anticipated, the cataloging
Distribution
Service may take the following actions to stay within budget:
reduce or defer non-personnel expenditures;
reduce or defer personnel expenditures;
make adjustments in product mix or product pricing.
The action taken would depend on the nature and extent of the
shortfall.
Question. Since Fiscal 1997 the actual receipts collected have been
on a slow decline. If CDS were to go out of business what could be the
long term liability to the Library?
Response. The long term liability to the Library if CDS were to go
out of business would be:
the negative public relations generated from the broader
library and information community's loss of its source for Library of
Congress cataloging databases, standards and technical publications;
the cost to the Library of developing alternative
dissemination processes or arrangements that would meet the needs of
its own catalogers as well as assure the continued availability of its
cataloging databases and standards to the worldwide library and
information community; and
under current personnel regulations of the Library, the
requirement to place all permanent CDS staff members in Reduction-in-
force status.
Law Library
Question. For the past several years we have provided authorization
for the Law Library to collect up to $350 thousand for the development
and maintenance of an international legal information database (GLIN).
Starting with the first year of the authorization, by fiscal year, how
much has been collected each year?
Response. The Law Library has experienced limited success in
offsetting collections:
FY 2000--$5,000,
FY 2001--$8,300,
FY 2002 (YTD)--$12,700,
Question. You are requesting $12.7 million over 5 years and 6 new
FTEs to develop and implement a fully functional GLIN system. From your
justification, this database will only contain legal information on
Latin American nations. How many requests do you receive, on an annual
basis, from Congress for legal information regarding Latin American
nations that justifies $12.7 million for the database?
Response. The GLIN database is not limited to Latin American
nations--the system already includes primary sources of law for
countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The requested $12.7
million will enable the Law Library to expand the GLIN system beyond
the 15 currently contributing countries, to include primary sources of
law, to a core of 50 countries that are of primary interest to
Congress. Funding is over a five-year period. In addition, the upgraded
system will include retrospective materials in digital format for Latin
American nations dating back to 1950. This is especially important for
Law Library attorneys responsible for 29 Spanish and Portuguese
speaking jurisdictions of Latin America.
The Law Library receives over 2,500 research and reference requests
from Congress for legal information annually. GLIN enables timely and
efficient access to primary sources of law in direct support of
research and reference requests.
Question. Are there plans to expand this database to cover other
parts of the world?
Response. Yes, the GLIN system already includes primary sources of
law for countries in Africia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The
requested $12.7 million will enable the Law Library to expand the GLIN
system beyond the 15 currently contributing countries to a core of 50
countries, that are of primary interest to the Congress.
Question. If this program is of such importance should we not
expect some cost sharing effort from the Latin American nations?
Response. The GLIN system is a network--consisting of 15 member
nations, two international organizations and the Law Library. GLIN
network members contribute full text of legal instruments and legal
writings, which requires an in-kind contribution of labor. Each GLIN
member nation has a team of people devoted to inputting their legal
instruments into the GLIN system. In fact, some countries currently
have more labor resources devoted to inputting data into GLIN than the
Law Library. Given the value of both the information and the labor, it
would be unreasonable to request monetary assistance from contributing
member nations.
The GLIN database/network is critical to the work of the Law
Library, ultimately reducing paper documents and related storage space,
eliminating the need for staff to search stacks, increasing staff
efficiency and productivity and providing timely access to all
materials. This system will benefit Congress by providing current and
accurate information on legislative action by other nations. Heightened
national security and growing economic interdependence makes GLIN
indispensable in responding to Congress on foreign issues.
Arrearage Reduction
Question. Last year the committee provided $850 thousand for the
arrearage reduction and collections support program to eliminate the
current cataloging backlog. Has; the backlog been worked off?
Response. The Law Library developed and implemented a plan to
eliminate the four arrearages, under its control, (agency transfer,
monographs and serials, looseleaf, and retrospective binding), by the
end of 2003. The work is well underway and on target to meet its
deadline.
Question. If not, what are your estimates of when it will be
accomplished?
Response. The Law Library is on target to eliminate the four
arrearages under its control by the end of 2003.
Office of the Librarian
Question. The Office of the Inspector General has requested two
additional auditor's to provide oversight of the Library's Information
Technology (IT) Security Program to ensure compliance with the Computer
Security Act, because staff have been diverted to address the
increasing demand for financial and performance audits, due mainly to
the growing number of Gift and Trust Funds. If resources are being
diverted because of the number of demands for financial audits on Gift
and Trust Funds then why has the Library not hired auditors using Gift
and Trust Funds to pay for those audits and then use your appropriated
funded positions for Information Technology Audits?
Response. The Library administered 231 gift and trust funds in FY
2001. Funds are restricted as to their use, which must be in accordance
with the terms of the gift or trust agreement and/or donor's will.
Library fund managers are responsible for administering and overseeing
the gift and trust funds to ensure they are used as directed by the
donors and in accordance with Library policy. The Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for providing oversight of all
Library programs, including these funds.
Currently, two gift funds, the James Madison Council and National
Digital Library, pay for separate financial statement audits. The
audited financial statements are used as fund raising mechanisms, and
therefore, are appropriately paid for by the two funds. All other gift
and trust funds are audited as a whole during the Library's
consolidated financial statement audit. The smaller funds do not
produce financial statements, and are reviewed by the OIG as part of
its annual audit plan.
For the past seven years, the Library's external auditors have
identified computer security weaknesses in their audit reports. Many of
the security improvements that have been made are in reaction to
specific audit findings. The OIG needs to continue assisting Library
management in developing and implementing corrective action plans that
address security weaknesses, and maintain its present effort in
conducting financial and program audits which also require a high
degree of computer expertise. The need for Information Technology (IT)
audit resources is outpacing the OIG's ability to conduct IT-related
audits, especially IT security audits.
Human Resources
Question. One of the priorities for your Human Resources Department
is to implement a web-based application to record employee time and
attendance, and transmit certified data to the Library's payroll
provider. Your payroll provider is the National Finance Center and they
use a system called ``PC-TARE''. If you are paying for payroll
processing, why is the Library taking on this project?
Response. The Library of Congress' Inspector General has indicated
that the current PC-TARE system is old and outdated and vulnerable to
fraud and abuse. In response, the Library established a working group
to define requirements for a new time and attendance system. Key
requirements identified by the working group included a web-based
system that could track data and provide reports to management and a
system that allowed for exception processing and electronic processing
from employee to certifying official, with transmission securely and
automatically to the National Finance Center. The Library has procured
and will implement an application to meet these requirements.
Question. Is the Finance Center not meeting your requirements?
Response. No, the National Finance Center (NFC) is not meeting the
Library's requirements. NFC is in the process of developing a PC-TARE
upgrade (STAR), which is a windows-based rather than a web-based
system. In addition, other key requirements identified by the Library's
working group will not be met by the NFC proposed upgrade.
Question. Your objective is to transmit certified data to your
payroll provider. Is there a problem with the current process? Are you
transmitting uncertified payroll data?
Response. The current system requires that data be input via
personal computer on disk. These disks are not secure and can be
changed at any time. Although a hard copy of the time and attendance
report is printed for both the employee and certifying official to
approve, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the disk is not
changed after the certification process. The new web-based time and
attendance application system will address this deficiency.
Integrated Support Services
Question. One of the accomplishments of your Integrated Support
Services Division was that they ``Conducted Business Assessments of
Operations in all Divisions''. Who conducted the assessments?
Response. The assessments were conducted by Martin Contract
Management/Michael Martin.
Question. What did you learn from the review?
Response. The business assessments reviewed not only management
operations but also business processes. Several issues were identified
including duplications of activities, in several divisions, affecting
team responses to labor requirements; obsolescent functionality such as
outdated and unresponsive Requests for Service processes, adversely
impacting the operations of our customers; and, new functional service
requirements, such as print shop service and increased security and
scrutiny of mail operations services and others as a result of
technology or other changes.
Question. What changes, if any, have you made as a result of the
assessment review?
Response. No changes have been made. Integrated Support Services is
developing a reorganization plan to implement recommendations made by
the assessment reviews and to incorporate recommendations of staff
affinity groups and functional affinity teams which support the
findings of the assessments.
Question. You are requesting 2 FTEs for the Modernization of the
Safety Services Division to meet new legal and mission critical
requirements. What are the legal and mission critical requirements that
you are not meeting?
Response. The Library is not meeting all of its responsibilities
under the Congressional Accountability Act. Significant regulatory
deficiencies exist with respect to the Safety portion of the Act.
Specific areas that the 2 FTEs would address include emergency
response, bloodborne pathogens, hazard communications, disposal of
hazardous waste and requirements for safety audits of federal agencies.
Central Financial Management System
Question. We have a request before us for $4.3 million, on a no-
year basis, for a new financial management system. In addition, you
will need another $2.7 million over the next 4 years for a total cost
of $7 million. You say that the current system is becoming increasingly
costly and difficult to maintain. What are the annual operating costs
of the current system?
Response. The budget request of $4.3 million is for software
acquisition, installation, and hardware costs for a new central
financial management system. The annual operating costs of the current
system are different than implementation costs and total approximately
$2.7 million for FY 2003. Funding supports a share of the Library's
Information Technology Service costs for operating the central
financial system--mainframe system software, storage and engineer and
application program costs--(1.5 million); Financial Services
Directorate Systems Accountants and Systems Analysts costs ($.6
million); and vendor support costs ($.6 million).
Question. You say that the current system was not designed to
process, account for, and report on financial data in a way that
satisfies today's needs. However, I understand that the Library has
just received its 6th consecutive clean audit opinion. With that kind
of record, how can you say that your current system does not satisfy
today's needs?
Response. The Library's mainframe-based central financial system
was purchased in 1993 and has served the Library well for almost a
decade. However, vendors have developed newer server-based systems
designed to meet today's accounting standards and requirements (rather
than add-on patches to older systems) and today's communications
environment. A modern Web-enabled financial system provides increased
functionality including: an improved capability to support cost
accounting and program-based budgeting; a more friendly point and click
graphical interface; work flow management tools; improved technology
for electronic commerce; improved technology for eliminating paper
forms; the capability to file supporting documentation along with the
financial transaction; and the capability to transfer documents or data
easily from one desktop or application to another. The technology
direction of the Library is server-based, and we are increasingly
finding staff retention difficult for mainframe applications. While the
Library's current central financial system meets our basic needs now,
its days are numbered because user requirements for enhanced
functionality are not being met and support for mainframe-based systems
will decline as vendors concentrate investment in the newer server-
based systems and as the Library loses staff trained on this outdated
technology.
Question. Will this new system provide cost accounting capability?
Response. Yes. Vendor software developed after the issuance of
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard No. 4, Managerial
Cost Accounting Standards (issued 2/1997), provides enhanced
functionality for implementing cost accounting.
Question. Why are no-year funds required for the new system?
Response. The implementation of the Library's central financial
management system will span five fiscal years. While the Library has
endeavored to split up those costs between the fiscal years, the actual
obligations may vary because of the procurement cycle and the actual
system selected. No-year funds are requested to handle the multi-year
nature of the project and uncertainty regarding the procurement
process.
Quesiton. What is your time line for implementation?
Response. Assuming congressional approval of the project and
funding by October 1, 2002, the Library plans to implement the system
during FY 2003 for initial production as of the beginning of FY 2004.
After normal system start up issues are resolved, new functionality
would be added in subsequent fiscal years.
Question. The agencies that you cross service (CBO, Office of
Compliance) are requesting function in support of this system. Why do
they require funding?
Response. The Library's budget request covers the cost of the
software, and the Library's implementation costs. The agencies that the
Library cross services must fund their portion of the implementation
costs (e.g., data conversion, transaction analysis, acceptance testing,
nightly cycle jobs, training and project management).
Response. Will this system be a system that all the agencies of the
Legislative branch, if they so desire, could utilize?
Answer. Yes. The Library plans to structure the contract so that
all Legislative agencies can either be cross-serviced by the Library
(at no additional costs for the software) or be able to purchase
discounted software and technical services for implementation at their
site.
Transit Subsidy
Question. Last year the Committee provided funding to the agencies
of the Legislative Branch in order to provide a transit subsidy of up
to $65 per month per employee. You are requesting an increase of
$973,000 to increase the subsidy to $100 per month. What was the
effective date of the increase from $65 to $100?
Response. The effective date of the increase was January 1, 2002.
Question. Did you increase the allowance on that date?
Response. The increase from $65 to $100 has not been authorized or
implemented by the Library.
Question. How many employees participate in the program?
Response. As of April 30, 2002, there are 2,233 employees
participating in the Transit Subsidy Program.
Question. What is the average allowance per employee?
Response. The average allowance per employee is $62 per month. This
does not include the 6 percent service fee.
Question. For this fiscal year are you running a deficit, surplus
or breaking even with the funding provided for this program?
Response. The Library anticipates breaking even. We will continue
to monitor costs during the balance of the fiscal year.
Child Care Benefits
Question. You have requested $150,000 for benefits for the Child
Care Center. What benefits are being provided and how many employees
are eligible?
Response. Child Care Center employees are eligible to participate
in the federal health insurance, life insurance, retirement, and Thrift
Savings Plan programs. As of April 30, 2002, 31 employees are eligible
for these benefits.
W-2 Information
Question. John Webster, as co-chair of the Legislative Branch
Financial Managers Council, the committee realizes that more and more
people are using computer based or web based tax preparation services
for their taxes. We understand that private sector employees make
available the electronic transfer or download of employee W-2
information. What, if any, barriers is there for the legislative branch
providing this option to its employees?
Response. The barriers would be cost and priorities. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (NFC) is the
payroll provider for most legislative agencies, including the Architect
of the Capitol, Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office,
Library of Congress, Office of Compliance, and the Capitol Police. NFC
currently provides Web-based viewing of W-2s for employees of those
agencies via the Employee Personal Page. NFC is working to expand
employee self-service capabilities and is willing to explore offering
electronic transfer or download of employee W-2 information as a self-
service item. While NFC is not aware of any technical barriers to
providing this offering, they have not conducted a benefit analysis or
risk assessment relative to such services. NFC would require additional
resources and guidance on priorities to complete their analysis.
Copyright Office
Question. You have as part of your justification a table that
estimates the value of material transferred to the Library of Congress
via the Copyright Office. How do you estimate the value of the
material?
Response. The number of works transferred is calculated from
Copyright Office automated systems that store statistics. The average
unit price is determined by the Library of Congress's Office of the
Director for Acquisitions at the end of each fiscal year using the
average price paid for other purchased materials.
Question. How do you determine what material is acquired/selected
for the collections?
Response. The Library has collections policy statements that
outline the criteria used to determine what materials or works should
be added to the Library's collections. This criteria is used by
acquisition specialists in Library Services and in the Copyright Office
to select for the collections works deposited in the Copyright Office.
Both mandatory deposit copies and materials submitted voluntarily for
registration are reviewed daily for potential additions to the
collections.
Question. What is the disposition of the material that is not added
to the collections?
Response. Approximately 60 percent of the works received in the
Copyright Office, including unpublished works, is not selected by the
Library. These materials are sent to the Office's Deposit Copies
Storage Unit (DCSU) at the Landover Center Annex. Deposits in the DCSU
are retained for specified periods depending on the type of material.
The Library disposes of non-selected serials. Monographic works, not
selected for the permanent collection, are used for exchange programs.
Question. You list as one of your priorities for Fiscal Year 2003
the implementation of your business process reengineering and your
information technology reengineering. Exactly what are these two
initiatives?
Response. The business process reengineering initiative covers the
Corpright's most important public services including registering
claims, recording documents, acquiring works for the Library of
Congress, answering public requests, maintaining records, and
accounting. The information technology reengineering initiative
provides the design, acquisition and building of IT services that
support the new business processes and will allow the Copyright Office
to expand its electronic delivery of public services.
These two initiatives are not being combined into a single
reengineering program so that the Office's work on processes,
facilities, organization and technology will be integrated. The program
is on schedule and will be ready for the next installment of funds
requested in FY 2003.
Question. What has been the cost of these review?
Response. To date, the Office has expended approximately $2.1
million on the reengineering program reviews.
Question. Are we to assume that there will be a return on your
investment in terms of increased productivity and cost savings?
Response. The return on investment will be to:
Improve public service, particularly online services which
will maximize the use of electronically received applications.
Provide up-to-date copyright records for the copyright
community, who rely on current information.
Improve deposit security.
Constrain operating cost in future years by minimizing
staff increases.
Books for the Blind
Question. The NLS plans to continue during Fiscal Year 2003 to
support its four basic goals of Fiscal Year 2002. One of those goals is
to maintain a level of sound reproduction machines to satisfy basic
users' requirements while developing no waiting lines. Do you currently
have waiting lines?
Response. There are no waiting lines at the present time.
Question. The committee has provided No-Year funding for many years
to be used for the purchase of ``Talking Book Machines''. What was the
unobligated balance of those funds at the end of the current fiscal
year?
Response. At the end of FY 2001, the unobligated balance of No-Year
funds used for the purchase of talking book machines was approximately
$30 thousand. By the end of FY 2002, it is anticipated that there will
be no unobligated balance.
Question. Another priority is to support development of audit-
recommended control systems. What were those recommendations?
Response. NLS initiated a machine control system some years ago.
Through experience, the system has been modified to address changing
requirements. There is no new audit recommendation for a control system
at the present time.
Furniture and Furnishings
Question. You have requested $76 thousand to begin replacing 143
pieces of material handling equipment. What makes up these 143 pieces?
Response. This request covers 17 different classes of material
handling equipment (not including book trucks or tubs). The 143 pieces
consist of: 14 forklifts; 1 material tug; 2 lift trucks; 28 electric
pallet trucks; 14 manual pallet jacks; and 84 miscellaneous pieces of
equipment such as: hand trucks, flatbed trucks, 2-and 4-wheel dollies,
panel trucks, et.
Question. What is the total cost of this replacement program?
Response. $608 thousand. This would allow the Library to replace 1
large forklift; 4 electric pallet trucks and 2 manual pallet jacks each
year with the remaining fiscal year funds designated to replace smaller
pieces such as hand trucks, dollies, etc. Under the proposed
replacement program, forklifts would be replaced every 11 years; lift
trucks every 10 years; electric pallet trucks every eight years and
miscellaneous smaller items every eight years.
Question. The committee noticed that in the President's Budget that
you are carrying forward unobligated balances from Fiscal Year 2002
into Fiscal Year 2003. We must assume that you still have funds
unobligated that were appropriated for Furniture and Furnishings of the
renovated Jefferson and Adams Buildings. What is the current
unobligated balance of those funds?
Response. The renovation of the Jefferson and Adams Buildings is a
multi-year project that is still on-going and will not be completed for
another 2-3 years. The current unobligated balance is $1.627 million.
Funding is needed to complete the renovations in the Humanities and
Social Sciences, Science Business and Technology, Catalog Distribution
Service, Local History and Genealogy, Area Studies, Rarebook Divisions,
and other smaller divisions.
Question. What is the current obligated balance, by fiscal year,
that has not been liquidated?
Response. Unliquidated obligations are as follow: Fiscal Year
2001--$17,379; Fiscal Year 2000--$6,802; Fiscal Year 1999--$18,321;
Fiscal Year 1998--$6,373; Fiscal Year 1997--$762; Fiscal Year 1996--
$12,470; Fiscal Year 1995--$0; Fiscal Year 1994--$18,166; Fiscal Year
1993--$17,935; Fiscal Year 1992--$5,877; Fiscal Year 1991--$5,579;
Fiscal Year 1990--$39,518; Fiscal Year 1989--$27,982.
ISS is in the process of reviewing and closing all projects/
accounts with unliquidated obligations by 9/30/02.
Fort Meade Book Module
Question. You state that another accomplishment is that you
continue to work closely with the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol (AoC) and their contractors on the first book storage module at
the Fort Meade, Maryland, campus. Considering the delay of taking
possession of the facility the two of you must not be working as
closely as you should. Exactly what were the Library's duties and
responsibilities during this project?
Response. The Library's role was to provide a program statement.
The program statement included environmental conditions, filtering
requirements, collection type, collections quantity, collections sizes,
storeage methodology (lidded boxes), number of staff, etc. This
information provided by the Library would be used by the AoC to design
and construct.
The Library's program statement was substantially complete in
February of 1996. The Library had no contractual, financial, code, or
construction responsibilities with regard to this project.
Question. Was there a breakdown in communications, a
misunderstanding regarding areas of responsibility, contractor
problems, or a lack of attention to daily operations and responsibility
by and between all parties involved that has caused this project to be
so far behind schedule?
Response. There was no breakdown in communication between the AoC
and Library. The AoC steered, chaired and coordinated regular monthly
(sometimes bi-weekly) meetings at which the Library made clear its
program requirements.
The AoC, independently making all decisions at all times, failed to
perform in a number of functions. As Mr. Hantman indicated in his April
12 memorandum, AoC was relying on ``a marginal contractor that became
insolvent in the middle of construction.'' The AoC used the wrong
purchase method, chose an inappropriate contractor, relied on faulty
estimates, hired consultants who were not familiar with collection
storage buildings, did not provide sufficient technical review of the
design or the installations, (particularly the fire system), and did
not provide proper management or oversight.
There was never any confusion as to the Library's role or the AoC's
role. The Library was to provide the program statement; the AoC's role
was to provide all technical expertise to design and construct in
accordance with that statement. This separation was clear, broad and
repeatedly defined and documented.
Question. Speaking for the Library can you give us any assurance
that the two organizations can work together to get this project back
on track?
Response. From the very beginning, the Library has taken a pro-
active approach of working with the AoC. The Library has always been
timely and responsive throughout the duration of this AoC-steered
process.
During the course of this project, the trust level suffered
severely as a result of repeated and dramatic failures by the AoC to
meet promised deadlines, provide the promised product, and to provide
time-sensitive documentation and feedback.
The Library recognizes the recent improvements that the AoC has
made. The Library is cautiously optimistic that if our newly
established working relationship persists, we can work through Module
#1 issues to a satisfactory resolution. We stand ready to assist in any
manner possible to get things back on track, but we are looking for
speedy and effective results. Only such results will enable us to give
the committee the assurance you seek.
The AoC and their consultant are currently working with a Library
team to review occupancy solutions and options. The options being
considered are those that might be accomplished within a 4 to 6 month
time frame.
Question. Since funding for Module #2 was not included in the AoC
budget request, much to your concern, are we ever going to move forward
with construction of the next two modules?
Response. The AoC has informed the Library that, if Congress
approves the amended AoC budget request for FY 2003. Module #2 can be
constructed in FY 2003, and that Modules #3 and #4 an be designed in FY
2003, constructed during FY 2005, and completed in FY 2006.
[Clerk's note.-- At the time this hearing volume went to
press an amended budget request, from the Architect of the
Capitol, had been received for Book Module #2.]
International Exchange Program (IEP)
Question. The Library works with the GPO on a program that deals
with the distribution of U.S. Government publications with foreign
governments that agree, as indicated by the Library, to send to the
United States similar publications of their government. How often does
the Library determine if, in fact, we do receive like publications?
Answer. The Library evaluates each of the IEP exchanges annually.
Acquisition and Area Studies staff review the receipts to ensure that
the Library is receiving ``like publications.'' The focus is on
quality, not quantity. The Library wants to obtain the official
gazettes, compilations of law, parliamentary proceedings, annual
reports of government agencies, statistical and census data as well as
maps and geologic surveys.
In many countries, exchange is the only viable and reliable source
of acquisitions, as the publications are not available through
commercial dealers.
Question. In the last five years have any governments been added or
deleted from the exchange program?
Response. No country has been added to or deleted from the program
in the last five years. An additional agency was added as a partner in
Egypt. Several partners were deleted from the program, although the
Library still has an exchange partner in each of the countries from
which partners were deleted.
Question. Under what authority does this program operate?
Response. Statutory authority: 44 USC 1719 provides for
availability of ``Not to exceed 125 copies for distribution to foreign
government as designated by the Library of Congress.''
Question. Does the Library or GPO consult with other government
agencies regarding the material that is exchanged?
Response. The Library does not consult with agencies other than the
U.S. Government Printing Office. The Library chooses titles for the
program from a list of open source government documents provided by the
GPO.
Question. What are the guidelines or rules under which you
determine what can or cannot be exchanged?
Response. The guidelines require that only open-source official
publications may be used in either side of the exchange.
Question. In light of recent events have you made any changes to
the participation, operation, security or other factors that may not
have been a consideration prior to September 11?
Response. The Library has made only one change in the operation of
the program: incoming materials are examined in the off-site screening
facility the Library shares with the House of Representatives before
they are delivered to the Library's loading dock.
Copyright Office FY02 Supplemental Request
Question. We have a pending FY 2002 supplemental request of $7.5
million for the Copyright Office because of the loss of revenue
resulting from the recent anthrax incidents impacting mail operations.
Are your receipt levels beginning to return to normal?
Response. No. February and March receipts each are down 40 percent
compared to last year. Through April, receipts are down approximately
one-third from last fiscal year.
Question. The irradiated mail has had a direct effect on your
operations. What are some of the problems and issues you have
encountered?
Response.
1. Some works submitted for registration are damaged and cannot be
examined to determine if they contain copyrightable authorship. In
these cases the Copyright Office must request that the applicant submit
a new copy of the work, which increases the Office's workload.
2. Application forms containing necessary information may be
brittle or torn. Such applications, front and back, must be photocopied
so that the request for registration may be processed.
3. Irradiation can also damage checks and we must request that the
applicant submit a new form of payment. We are instituting procedures
to allow for credit card payment of registration fees in these cases.
4. To determine the effective date of registration of items that
have been held, to the extent they can, staff must identify exact dates
reflected in postmarks and calculate the date the item would have been
received if it had not been delayed. This is an added and frequently
burdensome step, but one that is essential given the legal
ramifications based on date of receipt of the Copyright Office.
Congressional Research Service
Question. The Congressional Research Service is requesting funding
for 12 additional FTEs. With the problems associated with the Automated
Hiring system, I would assume that the operations of the Service have
been hindered. With the ever increasing need for expertise in areas
like terrorism and homeland security, how can your organization work
using this system and at the same time meet the demands of your
clients?
Response. Operating with 57 analyst vacancies, a 15 percent deficit
in analytic staff capacity, has been difficult. While CRS continues to
respond to all congressional requests, we have not been able to provide
the desired level of analytical work on important issues because of
staffing shortfalls. For some policy areas, in fact, we have had to
respond by offering services primarily in the form of descriptive
rather than analytical work.
Among specific areas in which CRS' staffing capacity has been
limited are homeland security organization, defense budgeting, defense
against weapons proliferation, public health, immunology and law
enforcement. Coverage of all major policy areas, however, has been
adversely affected by the extended period of staffing shortfalls. Until
recently, CRS has been able to meet congressional needs for expertise
in new policy areas through some appropriate combination of shifting
existing resources, hiring new staff, and augmenting resources through
contracted work. The ability of CRS to adjust to the needs of the
Congress, however, has become greatly constrained.
Hiring delays have hindered CRS efforts to acquire expertise to
meet new policy challenges in areas for which congressional interests
have recently grown appreciably and are likely to be sustained.
Examples are expertise needed to address congressional needs arising
from applications of information technologies and terrorism. The
ability to shift existing staff resources to match changing needs of
the Congress has become increasingly constrained as existing resources
have decreased and congressional needs have grown. The recent
accelerated pace of CRS staff retirements, which has been anticipated,
has left fewer experienced staff available to shift into new policy
areas. Furthermore, demands on experts who are already on board are
typically quite substantial; congressional needs in continuing areas of
interest remain very strong across a wide range of policy areas such as
agriculture, campaign and election reforms, education, energy, medicare
and trade relations. Finally, new policy challenges frequently call for
significant areas of expertise not currently available in CRS and not
quickly acquired by those who do not have area-specific education and
experience.
Using contract work to meet changing congressional needs can be
extremely useful but provides relief only for the limited range of work
that can be contracted out--special studies that can be well-delineated
and for which lead-time is ample. Contracting does not provide
significant additional support Congress expects from CRS, including on-
demand, direct access to interactions with experts with whom they have
established working relationships and from whom they expect
institutional knowledge about legislative operations as well as
institutional memory about legislative activities. Gains from using
temporary employment are limited in many of the same ways, and by its
nature, temporary employment does not build sustained analytic capacity
focused on meeting congressional needs. As situations demand, CRS
reassesses priorities and mobilizes all of its available resources to
meet the most essential needs of the Congress. CRS support for the
Congress in the wake of the September 11th attacks is the most dramatic
example. Even then, CRS began with a base level of expertise,
reflecting ongoing congressional concerns about terrorism. Before
September 11th, CRS recognized terrorism as a current legislative issue
area and CRS experts maintained a CRS Electronic Briefing Book on
Terrorism as well as a number of CRS reports and issue briefs. Before
the attacks, we had a half dozen or so staff who regularly worked on
various aspects of terrorism. Within weeks of the attacks, CRS had
nearly 100 staff working on myriad issues related to terrorism. To do
so, we had to supplement our leading experts with staff who had
secondary or related areas of expertise, such as:
Moving analysts who normally cover the Navy and Air Force
to track the military campaign in Afghanistan. This move was necessary
because the analyst who normally tracks military actions overseas is
also the only chemical/biological specialist and was working on the
anthrax incidents and biochemical threats to the homeland.
Moving the nuclear weapons complex analyst to cover civil
defense and nuclear proliferation requests.
Detailing an Information Specialist, with experience on
South Asia, to assist in covering Afghanistan for six months because
the senior analyst for South Asia retired (in December 2001). We also
acquired interim contract capacity for this area. (This position is one
of the first CRS analyst vacancies posted in April 2002).
CRS also uses other alternative hiring options available for entry
level positions--the Presidential Management Intern and Law Recruit
programs. These programs are limited to entry level hires, which meet
some needs, but are not suited for hiring high-level expertise.
Throughout the hiring system implementation, CRS staff have been
working closely with staff of the Library's Human Resources Services,
Office of General Counsel, and the contracting officer's technical
representative to help with both the system's implementation and with
the retrofit specifically addressing CRS's needs. We believe that most
of the problems have now been identified and are in the process of
being addressed systematically. CRS has identified 88 vacancies to be
filled this year--79 under the new automated hiring system and 9 under
alternative hiring programs identified earlier (with 2 of the 9
positions selected). For the remaining 79 positions, our hiring time
line follows:
April:
Completed first selection, for a Review Specialist.
Posted 12 analyst positions, with selections to be
completed during August and September.
May--June:
Complete selections for two Public Affairs Coordinators.
Post the remaining 38 analyst positions, with selections
to be completed between September and December.
June-September:
Post an additional 26 non-analyst positions, with the
first selections being completed in September.
October
Post the 12 new analyst positions requested in the FY 2003
request, with selections being completed in the second quarter of FY
2003.
November-December
Complete selections for May-June postings.
Post 10-20 new positions for new attrition--unspecified
vacancies occurring during the last quarter of FY 2002 and the first
quarter of FY 2003.
Question. Has CRS contracted out work as a result of the system? If
so, some examples of work that should have been done in-house rather
than being contracted out.
Response. CRS aggressively pursues the use of contracts to acquire
the capacity needed to meet the needs of the Congress--every year. The
use of contracts provides some limited relief to current capacity
shortfalls; however, this strategy does not serve the long-term mission
of CRS. The CRS mission can best be carried out with a permanent
workforce that has both institutional knowledge of the legislative
issues facing the Congress and an understanding of the analysis needed
to support Congress' deliberations on these issues. Permanent staff
also gain an organizational loyalty critical to successful public
service. Having said this, CRS experience with contractors has been
very positive, over a number of years.
CRS generally uses contract capacity to complete selected studies
on specific issues for which CRS expertise was not available, and for
which lead time in meeting congressional needs is not immediate. Use of
permanent staff is the most efficient and effective alternative for the
vast majority of congressional demands on CRS. With few exceptions,
Congress places its demands on CRS with some urgency. Resident experts
who are available on demand provide the only feasible way for CRS to
respond to the large volume of urgent congressional requests in a
timely manner. Congress places a large volume of demands on CRS that
reach across all areas of policy-making. Resident experts who have
experience working together--quickly identify the most appropriate
specialist(s) for each set of work requirements and combine forces as
appropriate across disciplines (law, economics, science, international
relations, etc.) or fields (e.g., banking, fraud, pensions, corporate
finance, etc.) to meet the great variety of congressional needs.
Congress works in a setting in which events and responses frequently
evolve rapidly. Resident experts have the flexibility to adjust work in
progress to adapt to new events and evolving legislative proposals.
Because resident experts have continuing responsibilities, they develop
research products that they can and do maintain through updates and
revisions to keep pace with events, including the legislative process.
Finally, only resident experts can provide (and mentor) the
institutional memory vis-a-vis legislative precedents.
This year, CRS has used contractors in several areas related to
terrorism and homeland security. All of these issue areas should have
been covered with in-house staff, had that in-house capacity been
available:
A contractor is currently working on a record, due this
spring, on an issue of considerable congressional interest: U.S.
cooperation with the European Union (EU) in its increasing role in the
police/judicial work to combat terrorism, including such things as an
enhanced ``Europol,'' an EU-wide arrest warrant, EU agreed-upon
definition of crime of terrorism and sentencing guidelines, sharing of
police intelligence information among member states and with the U.S.,
and extradition among EU states for trial of suspected terrorists.
A contractor is currently working on a major analysis
regarding the Office of Homeland Security.
Because of CRS' need to build up its capacities in (1)
criminal justice (including terrorism and drug control) and (2) public
health, we are using contractors until we complete the hires of
permanent staff.
A contractor is currently on-board to help us deal with
the absence of expertise on weapons of mass destruction proliferation.
The contractor is working to update reports, heretofore done in-house
on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: The Current
Situation and Trends, and Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and
Status.
A contractor is providing coverage for India, Pakistan and
other countries of South Asia, by updating issue briefs and other
reports dealing with the region.
Another contractor has started a five-month study on
biochemical risk assessments to critical infrastructure. The study will
identify a subset of biochemical threats to the nation's security in
terms of the technology and possible regulatory interventions that
could reduce potential threats.
In addition, we have identified two other areas for
contracts to further development of our analytic capacities in the
areas of expanding health insurance to populations not now covered.
Specifically, CRS needs capacity to work on models which (1) integrate
tax credits with program benefits, and (2) develop case and micro
simulation capacities in federal and private health insurance issues.
Question. If these problems continue, how do you plan to meet your
program objectives?
Response. We are hopeful that the system implementation problems
are nearing resolution and that the hiring hiatus is over. Based upon
our current hiring time line, we are planning to have all of our
positions posted by the end of September and staff on board by the end
of the calendar year. Further, if approved, we plan to post the twelve
analyst positions requested in the FY 2003 budget during early October,
with an expected report date not later than January 1, 2003.
CRS will make ever effort to meet its program objectives and the
demands of its clients--through new permanent staff acquired under the
new hiring process supported, as appropriate, by short-term contracts.
CRS managers are constantly seeking national experts with an interest
in contributing to the work CRS does for Congress--through aggressive
and extensive recruiting, to attract a diverse applicant pool from
which to fill our permanent positions and through known contacts for
the short-term contracts and interim temporary appointments.
The current union agreement limits non-competitive temporary
appointments (to bargaining unit positions in CRS) to 90 days. We have
requested that the Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA)
allow CRS to appoint temporary staff for a period of one year until the
critical positions are filled (permanently) under the new system. This
waiver request was made to give CRS the ability to add the interim
capacity needed to ensure that we can continue to respond to
congressional requests and provide the most optimal analysis possible.
Unfortunately, on April 18th, CREA denied the request. We will attempt
to continue to work with the union to reverse this decision because we
believe that the use of temporary staffing helps bridge the capacity
gap and enables CRS to meet program objectives and client needs.
Administrative Provisions
Question. You have requested that the administrative provisions
that restrict the use of flexible and compressed work schedules for
certain Library managers and supervisors be deleted. You say that by
eliminating this provision it will give the Library greater flexibility
in recruiting and maintaining a quality staff of managers and
supervisors by giving the Library the ability to offer different
schedules. What are the different work schedules that you wish to
offer?
Response. Consistent with the authority extended to other
government agencies, the Library seeks the option of offering
compressed with schedules to managers and supervisors in positions the
grades of which are equal to or higher than GS-15. Compressed work
schedules are fixed schedules that enable employees to complete the
basic 80-hour biweekly work requirement in less than 10 workdays.
Question. How has the provision hindered your ability to recruit
and maintain a quality staff of managers and supervisors?
Response. Those Library employees currently under compressed work
schedules, find the schedules helpful in balancing work and family
responsibilities. The Library regards these schedules as valuable tools
in recruiting and retaining quality staff. The Library, however, is at
a competitive disadvantage with other government agencies by its
inability to extend this same benefit to managers and supervisors.
Question. How can managers and supervisors perform their duties if
they are working from home?
Response. The compressed work schedule (meeting biweekly work
requirements in less than 10 workdays) should not be confused with
telecommuting, which does allow employees to work at home. The
compressed work schedule simply allows an employee to work his/her 80
hours in a combination of days/hours.
Response. How many managers and supervisors have refused positions
at the Library because of this provision and how many have quit because
of this provision?
Response. The Library does not maintain these statistics.
Reprogrammings
Question. For the record, insert all reprogramming documents, and
any other Committee approval actions.
Response. The information follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HIRING SYSTEM--KEY COMPONENTS
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Taylor.
First of all, did I understand correctly that you have an
automatic hiring system? Does that really mean that you hire
people without benefit of human contact nor perhaps even human
judgment?
Dr. Billington. No. It is automated, not automatic.
Mr. Moran. What does it mean, automated hiring system? I
should say automated. But there is a relationship. Tell me what
that means. You said you had three different competitors, but
does it mean that somebody applies on-line and just
automatically gets accepted based upon what their academic
scores are or something?
General Scott. I will take a crack at it in trying to make
a very complicated thing that I have been studying for the last
6 months as clear as I can. The automated system that we are
currently implementing is a system that is designed to aid
managers in getting the right people with the right skill sets
to do the right job. The key components of this automated
system are that the candidate goes on-line, finds out what the
position is through the vacancy announcement and then is able
to apply by answering questions that have been carefully
constructed by what we call subject matter experts.
Now, these are the people who know what knowledge, skills
and abilities (KSAs) are required to perform well in the
position. They have conducted a job analysis process in which
questions have been carefully constructed on the KSAs. When an
applicant picks answers, in the online questionnaire, the
automated system figures out who has said they have the
requisite requirements, and it refers to the selecting official
the top 7, 10, or 15 people who then go for an interview. The
selecting official would also have two subject matter experts
on the panel to conduct the structured interview with each
applicant.
Mr. Moran. That is better with regard to the interview, but
you know, I know everybody just thinks all this technology is
wonderful and it is a new day dawning and digitization is just
terrific, but you do this stuff on-line and these kids getting
out of college or graduate school figure it out pretty easily.
There has got to be a standard format that you are looking for
so you hire somebody that knows what they are doing to give you
the answers that you put on-line, and eventually you will have
little small businesses that will tell you exactly how to write
a response on-line because you don't have to show up. You know
automation works wonders if you know how to work the system.
But I am not going to belabor this. Mr. Hoyer has been
looking into this, and I trust he is going to have other
follow-up questions. But I have serious doubts. Could we have
Mr. Mulhollan come to the panel, Director of the Congressional
Research Service?
FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
Couple of things; One is the student loans. If you forgave
student loans, would that help in your recruitment and
retention of the people that we need to be advising us?
Mr. Mulhollan. Yes. We have looked into that; and Roll Call
ran a piece on a CRS report to Congress on the student loan
program. The Library has been working on a legislative branch-
wide effort to understand the student loan program, and we have
been very aggressively pursuing it. We think it will be useful,
as you mentioned, as both a retention tool and as a recruitment
tool. We are looking forward for the program to be implemented.
Right now it is in negotiation with the unions.
Mr. Moran. Negotiation with the unions over student loan
forgiveness?
Mr. Mulhollan. Implementing a student loan program.
Mr. Moran. I will talk to you later about that. I won't
take up the committee's time.
Mr. Mulhollan. Excuse me, sir. The student loan program
will be implemented at the Library of Congress through a
regulation. The unions have an opportunity to review Library of
Congress regulations and see if there is any impact on working
conditions. I believe it was determined to be negotiable, which
is why the unions are involved.
Mr. Moran. The student loan forgiveness is negotiable?
Mr. Mulhollan. It is part of a Library of Congress
negotiation.
Mr. Moran. Well----
Mr. Mulhollan. Actual implementation of the regulation.
[Clerk's note. Following are questions submitted to be
answered for the Record from Mr. Moran regarding the Student
Loan Program.]
Student Loan Program
Question. Mr. Mulhollan, could you describe how student loan
forgiveness program might help recruit talented new graduates to public
service?
Response. A recent review of CRS' newly hired graduates reveal that
70 percent have outstanding student loans, and that those loans average
about $33,000. These new graduate hires agree that a student loan
repayment program would be a powerful recruitment tool for attracting
future talent to CRS. In addition, they view student loan repayment
programs as an excellent retention tool--one that might encourage them
to stay with CRS longer than they would have otherwise anticipated.
Several recent studies point to the challenges faced by government
agencies in attracting top graduates to public service. For example,
Paul Light's 1999 research study, ``The New Public Service'', observes
that the number of public policy and administration graduates taking
first jobs with the government has decreased steadily from 76 percent
in 1973/74, to 68 percent in 1983, to 49 percent in 1993. In a separate
study conducted last year by the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for
the Business of Government, Harvard University professor Carol A.
Chetkovich found that students tend to view government jobs as
``routine, narrow in scope, and highly constrained, involving little
potential for development.'' By contrast, students believe that the
private sector will provide them with ``professional development,
intellectual challenge, and advancement opportunity, as well as
financial benefits.'' Both of these studies also point to the
significant salary differences between the public and private sectors.
And while most students agree that salary is not always the most
important consideration in taking a job, it clearly enters into their
decision-making process and is frequently cited as a major reason for
choosing the private sector.
In light of these trends and observations, many government agencies
have implemented or are in the process of implementing student loan
repayment programs as a way to help narrow the salary gap between the
public and private sectors. For students who bear a significant amount
of debt, these types of loan repayment programs can be a very
attractive hiring incentive.
Question. Could you tell us about your experience with new hires
and why such incentives are important to recruiting, hiring, and
retention efforts?
Response. CRS has done very well in attracting excellent candidates
to serve the Congress. However, the competition for top talent is
fierce and pits the government against private industry which can, and
does, offer higher starting salaries.
A recent review of CRS' newly hired graduates reveals that 70
percent have outstanding student loans, and that those loans average
about $33,000. These new graduate hires agree that a student loan
repayment program would be a powerful recruitment tool for attracting
future talent to CRS. In addition, they view student loan repayment
programs as an excellent retention tool--one that might encourage them
to stay with CRS longer than they would have otherwise anticipated.
The student loan repayment program is viewed positively by students
with loans; however, the program raises questions of equity with
respect to students who do not have college loan balances because they
worked while attending school in order to pay for their education.
Students without an outstanding college loan from a financial
institution are not eligible for a recruitment incentive under the loan
forgiveness program. At CRS, we would offer these students other
professional development opportunities to provide equity in both
recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff.
Recruitment and retention are critical to CRS's future success in
ensuring the continuation of high quality services to the Congress. We
fully support the implementation of a student loan repayment program in
the Library of Congress.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Mr. Moran. On another subject matter, some of us have felt
that since we lost the Office of Technology Assessment that we
haven't had the kind of technological expertise that we needed
on some technology-oriented legislation and some have felt that
to a greater degree than others. But I would assume that your
approach would be that you have the resources and, perhaps with
a little beefing up, you can perform that function as well as
OTA did it. OTA did perform some functions that are not
exactly--that are somewhat different than what the
Congressional Research Service traditionally does.
But I would like to hear from you. Do you feel as though
you have or can pick up the slack from the technology expertise
that was lost with the abolition of the OTA?
Mr. Mulhollan. The Office of Technology Assessment used a
particular kind of tool to help Congress address emerging
technology issues or to perform technology assessments. This
was accomplished by bringing outside individuals together for
an extended, intense project, from both academia and the
private industry. CRS does policy analysis; and Congress has
been supportive of continuing to build the science and
technology capacity for policy analysis.
Currently we have about 50 staff supporting science and
technology policy analysis. We have PhD's in biology, physics,
environmental science and a number of science and technology
fields. Last year this committee was good enough to give us
support for five new specialists to address the impact of
information technology on congressional issues, including a
specialist in telecommunications. What CRS does, hopefully, is
to bring together the economists, attorneys, and scientists in
an integrated way and anticipate the consequence of alternative
provisions and proposals in law.
That is our statutory mandate. We need, and the Congress
needs, the expertise that this new science and technology
capacity can provide . . . from stem cell research to
bioterrorism. In our FY 2003 budget request, we are seeking
additional scientific capacity in two particular areas. First,
in the area of terrorism and homeland security, we are
requesting two new positions, an epidemiologist and a
biochemist. Second, in the anticipation of Congressional issues
and problems on the aging of the U.S. population, we are
requesting a gerontologist and a geneticist. Working with you,
we have been trying to build that much needed science and
technology capacity.
Mr. Moran. You do feel that you can replicate what OTA used
to do?
Mr. Mulhollan. No, sir, because what we are doing
specifically is policy analysis. Technology assessment is a
different activity, one that CRS does not undertake.
We have on rare occasions brought extensive panels to look
at broad issues--we did actually do something comparable last
year on the impact of the environment on children's health. We
used foundation money for that and we brought in a broad range
of experts. That panel more closely approximates some of the
framework of a technology assessment, but it is a different
tool than policy analysis, if that is helpful.
Mr. Moran. It is. Thank you, Mr. Mulhollan.
[Clerk's note. Following are questions submitted to be
answered for the record from Mr. Moran.]
Congressional Research Service Use of Technology
Question. Could you explain in what ways CRS is ``falling short''
in use of technology?
Response. In CRS' budget request for FY 2002, I spoke of the risk
that CRS was falling short in developing an integrated, secure, robust
technology-based environment that would allow us to provide Congress
with the analysis and information needed, and in providing the
technical tools for our researchers to perform their work for Congress.
Thanks to the response of this committee to those concerns, I am
pleased to report that CRS is now in a position to take significant
steps in achieving the very goals that I outlined a year ago.
Specifically, CRS has:
Begun the process of upgrading the network environment
that supports CRS' researchers so that it will be more secure, more
reliable, and able to support staff even in the event of a disaster.
Committed contract funds to enable CRS to begin planning,
with the Library, for the possible need to operate its research network
from an alternative computing facility. We are about to award a
contract for the first phase of this work.
Undertaken work to provide a more reliable and accessible
technical platform for CRS' growing quantitative databases and the
modeling tools we have developed especially to support our analytic
work in such critical areas as welfare reform, Medicare managed care,
and health insurance. We will be extending the scope and coverage of
these quantitative analytic tools in the coming year.
Created a text analysis software program that allows CRS
to track legislative provisions across bills and Congresses, and have
begun evaluating other text analysis tools that will support this type
of computer intensive policy research.
Completed plans and are implementing two-way secure e-mail
communication between CRS and the House and Senate. Our mandate to
ensure the confidentiality of such communications has made this an
especially challenging task, but with the cooperation of the Senate
Computer Center and House Information Resources, we have addressed this
problem.
Undertaken a review of the search software on the CRS web-
site to determine how to make it more relevant and responsive to
congressional needs. We are also undertaking an evaluation of the
software used to create our general distribution products with the goal
of making them more quickly and easily accessible on the web.
Developed plans to acquire the necessary high level
technical leadership skills, through contract, until we are able to
fill these positions with permanent staff.
Workforce Diversity
Question. How have your efforts to diversify your workforce
succeeded?
Response. CRS has successfully employed a diversity strategy with
several component elements:
First, the CRS Succession Initiative, which was supported
by congressional funding in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, involved
extensive nationwide recruiting efforts and has revealed intense
competition for a small pool of minority graduate students (14 percent)
reduced further by fewer students seeking public service. This effort
included several components: (1) the CRS Graduate Recruit Program (41
hires, 20 percent minority) between 1997-2000; (2) the CRS Law Recruit
Program (five hires, 40 percent minority) between 1997-2000; (3) the
Presidential Management Intern Program (seven hires, 43 percent
minority) between 1997-2000; (4) Research Partnerships (``Capstone''
projects); and (5) Outreach to Minority-Serving Organizations (e.g.,
Atlanta University Center, United Negro College Fund, Congressional
Black Caucus, etc.).
The second component in the CRS diversity strategy is the
CRS Internal Programs which comprise internships, working groups and
professional development opportunities, such as: project management
coordinators; technical support assistants; and the CRS detail
opportunity program. CRS also participates in the Library's Volunteer
Intern Program, Career Opportunity Plan, Recruitment and Mentoring
Workgroups.
The third component in the CRS diversity strategy is
participation in many of the Library's diversity programs, including;
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) National
Internship Program (one to two interns per year since 1996);
Affirmative Action Intern Program (three interns in fiscal years 1994-
1996); Affirmative Action Detail Program (participated in the 2000
program); Leadership Development Program (recently submitted nine
project proposals); and the Executive Potential Program (eight
assignments since 1996).
Since the beginning of fiscal 1994, CRS has lost more staff than it
has been able to replace. For both total staff and professional staff,
however, CRS has been able to hire minorities in a greater proportion
than it has lost. CRS has increased professional minority staff to 16
percent (total minority staff 33 percent). As of June 2001, when
compared to the national professional civilian labor force, CRS is at
or above parity for Black men and women and Native Americans. CRS is
also working to improve under-representation in other areas, especially
for Hispanic men and Asian American/Pacific Island men--the two
categories in which CRS is currently most under-represented. For
example, CRS is focusing recruitment efforts on universities with high
concentrations of Asian and Hispanic students; partnering with specific
public policy schools which have high proportions of Asian and Hispanic
students to undertake research through the ``Capstone'' projects; and
meeting with all Members of Congress who participate in the Black
Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and Members of Asian-American descent to
elicit ideas on how to improve staff representation.
MAIL-IMPACT ON COPYRIGHT OPERATIONS
Mr. Moran. Copyright issues, and then I will let others ask
their questions. The anthrax incidents; that is a principal
reason why your fees are way down. But, are there other reasons
why they are down? I understand you are hurting in terms of
copyright.
Ms. Peters. We had 600,000 pieces of mail that were held up
as of yesterday, but they are starting to come in a big way.
About one-third to 40 percent of our receipts have not yet been
received, but we anticipate getting them at some point.
However, some deposits may be damaged, including the checks. So
we have to write the remitters to get authority to use a credit
card, and request deposits to replace the ones that have been
damaged. As a result we do not expect we are not going to be
able to make up the one-third percent loss we anticipate for
this fiscal year.
Mr. Moran. 600,000 pieces is a lot of mail. Why would the
checks be unusable?
Ms. Peters. Many of them seem to be melted into the deposit
as they go through the irradiation process. It looks like the
deposit has been through a microwave oven. It melts. For
example a CD plastic case and the check in the package melted
together.
Mr. Moran. I saw that exhibit. You can show it to the other
members. So that is part of it.
Mr. Moran. Are you using the same mail delivery system we
are using?--Is this the same problem we are having?
Ms. Peters. Yes. It is the same mail system you have.
Mr. Moran. Let me let other people ask questions.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Wamp.
[Clerks note: Following are questions submitted to be
answered for the Record from Mr. Moran.]
Copyright Office Fees
Question. Is the problem you are facing regarding the collection of
copyright fees because the mail is delayed or are we seeing an actual
decrease in the volume of submissions? In other words, is the problem a
short-term, timing issue or is it a longer term problem that will
impact the operation of the office?
Response. The Copyright Office believes this is a short-term issue
due to the delay in receiving mail, even though, there could be an
overall decrease in mail for the remainder of the year as some
remitters may decide to refrain from submitting claims because of the
Office's mail problem. The Library does not anticipate a long-term
decrease in the Copyright's Office's receipts.
Question. If the supplemental funds are provided, what happens to
the $7.5 million when the backlog of submissions is cleared and money
begins coming in again?
Response. Any excess revenues will de deposited into to the
Copyright Office's No-Year account. Expenses in this account are
subject to Congressional approval.
Question. What steps are you taking to ensure that the materials
going through the mail processing system are not permanently damaged?
Response. Procedures for screening mail before it reaches the
Copyright are determined by the congressional mail task force. The
Office has informed the task force of the impact these procedures have
had on the deposits and will work with the task force to prevent future
damage to deposits.
Question. Do the steps you have put in place delay any services to
your customers?
Response. There is no delay to materials that have not been damaged
in the process, except when staff need to determine the effective date
of registration for held mail. For damaged materials, delays are caused
when the Office has to request a new check or deposit.
National Digital Library
Question. Dr. Billington, this subcommittee has entrusted the
Library of Congress with a significant infusion of funds for the
``National Digital Library.'' ($21.5 million in fiscal 2002 in addition
to $100 million in the fiscal '01 appropriations). While I share your
vision of carrying this institution's commitment to preserve our
nation's written heritage into the future, I have some general concerns
that a complete program can be put in place before these funds are
committed. What is the status on developing the digital library plan?
Response. The plan for the National Digital Information
Infrastructure Preservation Program ($100 million in FY 2001) will be
completed this calendar year. To date, the Library has undertaken a
series of planning, outreach and assessment activities jointly with
representatives of concerned federal agencies and libraries, research
libraries and universities, and many not-for-profit and business
organizations involved in efforts to preserve, collect, manage and
disseminate information in digital formats.
The specific steps we are undertaking for the national strategy
effort/special appropriation follow the mandate of the legislation:
involvement of others in government, industry, and the
archival community with an interest in collecting and preserving
digital content;
a collaborative planning process that brings key
stakeholders from these communities together to develop approaches to a
national strategy for digital collecting and preservation;
a federal government collaborative planning effort for
digital preservation research; and
several studies, analyses and investigations about
possible approaches, technologies and infrastructures.
Specific next steps are to refine the alternatives approaches
developed collaboratively with industry, along with the several studies
and investigations currently delivered or in process, and to analyze
these proposed strategies within a defined national digital
preservation technical and organizational framework.
The Library is encouraged by the level of support it has received
for this critical national program. However, we need to ask for an
extension on the March 2003 deadline for the $75 million match. We have
been advised by the people who we hope and believe will help us in the
private sector that now is not the best time to raise private funds for
this national program. The completion and approval of the program plan
is an important first step to help engage the industry in making
private contributions because most of the matching funds will be in the
form of in-kind contributions through collaborative partnerships. We
will continue to work with a wide variety of institutions in the
information community, as mandated by the Congress in the special
appropriation.
Question. Where have the funds been held pending adoption of this
plan?
Response. The legislation provided $100 million to the Library of
Congress to establish the program. All funds are held in a Department
of Treasury account. Of this amount, $25 million was provided
immediately to the Library in FY 2001. The additional amount, up to $75
million, will not be made available to the Library until the matching
requirements specified in the legislation are met.
Of the $25 million provided immediately to the Library, $5 million
is held in a No-Year account available for use during the plan
development and approval cycle. Authorized activities include planning
development and digital information collection and preservation. The
remaining $20 million is held pending approval and adoption of the
plan.
Question. Would you object to periodic reporting requirements to
keep this subcommittee and others apprised or review by the Inspector
General.
Response. The legislation establishing the National Digital
Information Infrastructure Program requires Appropriations Committee
approval each time there is a release of funds under the program. In
this process, the Library will provide the committee a status report on
the program and specific plans for use of the additional funds.
In addition, regular audits and reviews of the National Digital
Library are part of the Library Inspector General's scheduled work
plan.
Russian Leadership Program
Question. Each year Congress continues to appropriate funds for the
Russian Leadership program. I believe the request for fiscal '03 is $10
million. Could you provide the subcommittee with an accounting of how
these funds have been spent?
Answer. A total of $28.978 million was provided to the Russian
Leadership Program from FY 1999-2001. Of that amount, $18.508 million
was obligated. The balance of $10.47 million was transferred to the new
Center for Russian Leadership in FY 2002 and should be obligated this
year.
Funding through FY 2001 supported:
($000)
11 Personnel Compensation................................. $639
12 Personnel Benefits..................................... 150
21 Travel................................................. 39
22 Transportation of Things............................... 1
23 Rent, Communications & Utilities....................... 3
24 Printing and Reproduction.............................. 18
25 Other Contractual Services............................. 12.537
26 Supplies and Materials................................. 6
31 Equipment.............................................. 17
41 Grants................................................. 5.098
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Obligations, FY 1999-2001....................... $18.508M
Question. Is there an outstanding unexpended balance? How much?
Response. The available balance as of the Board of Trustees meeting
was $18.1 million; the anticipated balance at the end of FY 2002 will
be $2 million. Since the Open World Program funds are No-Year funds,
the program operates on a 52-week cycle (bringing delegations of
approximately 120 each week). The program also manages 2-3 nominating
and vetting cycles per year for travel anticipated in 4-5 months time.
Vetting and planning are already underway for travel in FY 2003.
Similarly, grants to U.S. host organizations have been made for FY 2002
with commitments for hosting in U.S. communities through December 2002.
Question. Will this program become a regular line item in the
Library's budget, or will it phase out as Congress originally intended?
Response. The Open World Program is managed by a distinct
Legislative Branch entity, the Center for Russian Leadership
Development, as authorized in P. L. 106-554. Effective with FY 2002,
the Center is not included in the Library's budget.
Law Library
Question. Last year, the American Bar raised concerns about the
condition of the Law Library. How have you worked during the current
year to address these concerns?
Responses. With funds appropriated in FY 2002, the Law Library
developed and implemented an aggressive Plan to eliminate the four
arrearages under its control and will be able to process incoming
materials and new receipts on a current basis.
To address concerns regarding digital resources, the Law Library
has requested funding in FY 2003, to develop and implement a fully
functional Global Legal Information Network (GLIN) system. This system
will contain the highest quality of legal sources in digital format;
allow the Library to acquire, process and access legal sources from
around the world, and in a timely manner; and support the staff by
providing the highest quality research and reference services to
Congress.
Question. Has the additional funds enabled you to address this
backlog and prevent it from occurring again?
Response. Yes, with the additional funds appropriated in FY 2002,
the Law Library developed and implemented an aggressive Plan to
eliminate the four arrearages under its control by the end of 2003. The
work is well underway and on schedule. In addition, funds appropriated
in FY 2002 have provided the Law Library the needed resources to
process incoming materials and new receipts on a current basis.
Rare Book Collection
Question. Have you been able to hire a curator for the 65,000 rare
book collection?
Response. The position has been posted and is expected to be filled
shortly.
Transit Benefit Program
Question. As one of the largest employers within this appropriation
(4,189 FTEs), I appreciate you providing me with an update on when you
intend to offer your employees parity with the new executive branch
transit benefit. I would submit that this benefit is very attractive
and could be as useful to attract and retain employees as the student
loan payment program.
Response. The Library is requesting an increase of $973 thousand in
FY 2003, to increase the subsidy from $65 per month to $100 per month.
This increase will allow the Library to offer its employees parity with
the executive branch transit benefit. This new rate will be implemented
October 1, 2002 or whenever funding is approved.
Off-Site Storage
Question. What is the status of your off-site storage project at
Fort Meade?
Response. Module #1 has been delayed for more than five years.
Recent changes in key Architect of the Capitol (AoC) management
positions make the Library cautiously optimistic that if our newly-
established working relationship persists, we can work through Module
#1 issues to a satisfactory resolution. The Library stands ready to
assist in any manner possible to get things back on track, but we are
looking for speedy and effective results.
The Library understands that the AoC and their consultant are
developing occupancy options that might be accomplished within a 4- to
6-month time frame.
Question. When do you anticipate that we will be able to store
materials off-site?
Response. The Library cannot answer this question until the AoC and
their consultant have developed clear options for consideration by the
AoC and Library. We hope that mutually acceptable solutions to the
pending issues will permit occupancy in 4 to 6 months at the most.
Question. Are plans developed for starting the second module?
Response. A program statement for Module #2 is currently being
finalized by the Library and forwarded to the AoC. It is anticipated
that the agreed-upon program statement will be signed by the AoC and
the Librarian within the next several weeks. Design will begin in early
summer and will continue for a period of eight months. If funding is
approved by the Congress, construction will follow in calendar 2003
with occupancy scheduled for 2004.
Question. What can be done to move this project forward at a more
rapid pace?
Response. The schedule now agreed upon between the AoC and the
Library for design and construction of Module #2 and the two subsequent
modules is acceptable to the Library. The project will move ahead at a
good pace if the AoC's FY 2003 amended budget request is approved by
Congress and if the AoC gives high priority to ensuring proper design
and construction of the remaining modules.
Question. What is the impact to your services by not being able to
access the storage facility?
Response. The impact on service is significant. The Library is
unable to properly shelve new acquisitions arriving on Capitol Hill.
Many of these items are stored on the floor, double shelved, or placed
in temporary overflow areas. Books stored in such a manner are
especially susceptible to damage. When a request for books is received,
response time is often delayed, or the item cannot be located without
devoting extensive staff time to searching.
Question. Are there budgetary implications to not having access to
off-site storage?
Response. Yes. Extensive staff resources are required to
continuously shift collections remaining on Capitol Hill. This is time-
consuming, is of minimal benefit, has to be repeated frequently, and
keeps staff from other important activities. Productivity in retrieving
material has suffered as staff have been required to look in multiple
places for an item. Follow-up searches for material not found require
significant resources.
The delays in building subsequent modules has resulted in the
Library remaining in the environmentally-poor and expensive rental
facility at Landover, Maryland. Originally, we were expecting to vacate
Landover by 2006, the termination of the current 10-year lease. This is
no longer practical. Costs for this space for the last 6 years (FY
1997-2002) has totaled $3.44 million.
From a preservation perspective, material that is improperly housed
is subject to damage from water, poor support, kicking, etc. This
results in a potentially higher cost for preservation treatment,
recovery from water damage, replacement of damaged material, etc.
Security
Question. Please give us the status of security projects that have
been accomplished and/or initiated since 9/11.
Response. Three security projects have been initiated, including:
preliminary design work for a new Library Emergency Management Center,
Library police radio communications upgrades, and improvements in
Capitol Hill-wide emergency communications systems. In addition, three
other security projects initiated before 9/11 have progressed,
including: final congressional committees' approval and construction
contract award for the Library's perimeter security plan, final design
approvals and phase I construction work for a new consolidated Library
police communications center, and 35 percent design approval for
Library buildings security modifications to entrance lobbies and
associated access controls.
Question. How are you coordinating your security measures with
other organizations on the Capitol campus?
Response. The Library police maintain continuous communication with
the Capitol Police and the Supreme Court police regarding
demonstrations, emergency preparedness and response, intelligence
liaison, and day-to-day operational coordination. In addition, the
Library's Office of Security maintains near daily contact with the
Capitol Police Security Services Bureau, Architect of the Capitol,
Supreme Court Marshal Office, and the Folger Shakespeare Library
regarding the Library of Congress's multi-year physical security
enhancements project.
Question. What procedures are in place of ensure that your police
force is in close coordination with the Capitol Police?
Response. Under an existing Memorandum of Understanding, the
Capitol Police provide services to the Library of Congress Police,
including hazardous device and explosive ordnance technician support,
crime scene search, and prisoner transport and processing.
Additionally, the Library and Capitol Police forces regularly
coordinate on dignitary protection, intelligence, physical security
initiatives, and law enforcement incident matters.
Question. Are there services that are no longer available to the
public, staff or members of Congress due to security concerns?
Response. No, although a number of additional security measures
have been implemented in order to maintain acceptable levels of
service.
National Book Festival
Question. Has the status of the National Book Festival changed
because of security concerns?
Response. The Library has been working closely with Lt. Wesley Mahr
of the U.S. Capitol Police in planning for the National Book Festival's
security. Several major events are scheduled on the Capitol's West
Front prior to the National Book Festival on October 12. These include
the Memorial Day and Fourth of July concerts. Lt. Mahr intends to use
the experience from those popular public events to gauge the right mix
of security for the book festival. At this time, however, the plan is
to erect snow fencing and inspect packages at several checkpoints for
those entering the grounds.
Some elements of the festival will be spilling onto the National
Park Service's grounds between the Capitol Reflecting Pool and Third
Street and from Third Street to Fourth or Fifth Street. Security will
be less noticeable in those spaces.
Originally, the 2002 National Book Festival was scheduled for
September 21. The date has been moved to October 12 to accommodate the
request that it not be held while Congress is in session and to have
some distance in time between September 11 and the festival.
The Library is grateful to the House for passing H. Con. Res. 348
on April 30, 2002, authorizing use of the Capitol grounds for the
National Book Festival.
Workforce Diversity
Mr. Wamp. I am tempted to ask Dr. Billington to ask what it
is like to be the second most beloved Librarian in the world
since the First Lady has been on the job for 16 months, but I
won't do that.
General Scott, it looks to me from the outside like your
staff at the Library of Congress is very diverse. I am around
all the time and I see them coming and going and I see this
room, and yet there is still some controversy about diversity.
How do you rank and how do you compare to other departments and
other agencies in terms of diversity?
General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. The Library for the
past 10 years has devoted considerable effort to making sure
that not only do we have quality hires, but also that we have
diverse hiring. We have submitted to members of the committee
our latest Fairness Report, which shows that when you compare
the Library's hiring statistics for minorities in the Senior
Level grades, in grades 15 through 13, and GS-12 to 9, those
percentages compare very favorably in that the Library is
considerably higher than the federal government in
representation of minorities in those categories. When you look
at the statistics for African Americans in particular in those
same grades, the statistics show that the Library also exceeds
the federal government's civilian workforce data.
We are very proud of this diversity which we worked hard to
achieve and will continue to address even as we are putting in
the new automated hiring system.
Workforce-Impact of Retirement, Recruitment and Retention
Mr. Wamp. What about the graying workforce? We talked in
previous years about how we are losing so many people to
retirement. I know budgetarily you really have to work over
time and spend more money to make sure that we recruit people,
and Daniel talked about the situation at CRS, but how are we
doing long term in terms of filling the gaps of the people that
are retiring over the next 5 years?
Dr. Billington. We are working on that and that is why we
have to have continued requests and some further FTEs because
there is an age creep that is involved.
Let me add on this subject of diversity, that the Libary
compares very favorably to the federal gvernment in ensuring a
strong minority presence. Particularly noteworthy are the
Senior Levels, where the percentage of minorities at the
Library nearly doubles that of the federal government.
Moreover, compared to 1990, the percentage of minorities in
general, and African Americans in particular in the Senior
Level workforce has doubled.
So there has been progress with regard to the benchmarks at
all categories of our own comparison with 12 years ago plus
compared to the average of the Federal workforce itself. Now on
the question of workforce aging, CRS had it first and then
Library Services implemented a succession planning program, so
that we are trying to impart the institutional knowledge and
wisdom.
It is very important that we keep increasing the FTEs. Even
with the ones we are requesting this year we are still 191
short of what we were 10 years ago in 1992. So there must be
some opportunity for newly hired staff to benefit from the
existing institutional knowledge of our staff. When we are the
only institution in the world that tries to collect anything
important in every format and every language. It is an
incredible accomplishment that the Congress has supported this
kind of an operation. But, it means that all kinds of skills,
highly specialized, are needed. Therefore, we are trying to add
FTEs to get to where we were 10 years ago while maintaining a
much larger workload. That was before we were on-line and had a
billion and a quarter hits, as we did last year, in electronic
transactions.
We have established a whole new universe that we are
serving as well as the traditional ones, which are way up to
124,000,000 items. It is something we are very cognizant of.
Fortunately, the retirement rate hasn't been quite as great as
we might have feared, but at any time this could accelerate
and, therefore, the need for the FTEs as well as the budgetary
request that we have made is very acute because we have got to
get these people there while the veterans are still there to
impart their wisdom and have that one of a kind experience that
they have had.
Electronic Backup and Storage
Mr. Wamp. From a Federal perspective the Library of
Congress has led the digital revolution in terms of archiving
for a number of years. But General Scott, we have talked a
number of years of backing up our data off base and moving it
off-site.
Have we done that?
General Scott. I am pleased to report that since last year
we have made progress in that regard, and I want to make a
couple of main points here. The first one is that we have
procured and implemented a more robust tape backup technology,
one which accomodates the large volume of data that we generate
now. The second point is that the tape backups of all the data
files are now stored in two remote locations. We also currently
are involved with the House and the Senate in looking for an
alternate computer facility site, and expect to begin to occupy
that facility later this year.
We also have a consultant who has come in to help us
evaluate the current state-of-the-art storage mirroring and
backup solutions to meet the Library's unique requirements.
And, as Dr. Billington stated earlier, as part of the digital
program Laura Campbell is ably heading, we are looking at
greater capacities to handle meta data. So, yes, we have made
some progress.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer.
Workforce Diversity
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the diversity issue,
both with respect to the Library of Congress and CRS, my
colleague Al Wynn has requested a GAO study and I am going to
talk to him about this. But in reviewing the graphs that you
have presented to the committee, at least initially my reaction
is that the Library of Congress is doing an excellent job in
reaching out. Am I correct that your percentages, both in terms
of minorities generally and African Americans in particular,
exceed Federal Government performance generally?
General Scott. Yes, sir, you are correct in that
interpretation. OPM gathers federal workforce statistics
annually. It is those statistics that the graphs you mentioned
are based on.
Mr. Hoyer. Is that both private and public sector
employment?
General Scott. Talking Federal Government. And so from
those statistics, the Library has exceeded the average in that.
Dr. Billington. Actually it is the OPM, Office of Workforce
Information, that provides us this information.
Mr. Hoyer. Well, that is an issue we will be looking at
more closely. I don't know what GAO is going to come up with or
how quickly it will come up with it, but it appears initially
that the efforts you have been making have been productive and
have moved you ahead in accomplishing the objective.
Fort Meade Book Module
I want to ask some quick questions of you. For the
immediate, tell me how important that remote storage facility
is, how you are working with the Architect and in particular
the status of modules two, three and four. How pleased are you
with what the Architect is doing?
Dr. Billington. I will make a general point and turn it
over to General Scott, who is in more direct operational charge
of this, but the essential point is that the Library
desperately needs space to store its collections properly. The
Library receives 3 million new items every year and we have
clearly stated our needs for module one. The Architect's
responsibility was to provide for the design and construction.
We have been working with the Architect of the Capitol since
1996 to plan for the construction of module one. However, due
to many issues at the Architect's office the facility is still
not ready.
We are cautiously optimistic that the Architect now
understands the urgency of the problem and is moving in the
right direction. I will turn it over to General Scott, who can
basically describe the program. They are responsible for the
execution. And we have been very much behind, but we are in
hopes that things will get better. General Scott can provide
more of the details.
General Scott. Just to add on, we have been trying to get
module one constructed for the last 5 years; our effort started
in 1996. As Dr. Billington said, it is our responsibility to
provide the program management design criteria, which we did,
to include the environmental conditions----
Mr. Hoyer. General, what seems to be the problem and the
delay?
General Scott. The problem--and I am going to paraphrase
Mr. Hantman's words in a letter to Dr. Billington, was that the
Architect of the Capitol made some short-sighted management
decisions in the oversight of the construction and design of
that building; he has recognized those management shortfalls;
and he has communicated to Dr. Billington that he and his staff
want to rectify those in building modules two, three and four.
As Dr. Billington said, we are cautiously optimistic that the
Architect is now moving in the right direction and we will work
with him to be sure that those short-sighted management
practices are not continued.
FORT MEADE--IMPACT OF DELAYING MODULE ONE
Mr. Hoyer. General, what are the costs of module one being
delayed?
General Scott. I would like to refer that to Winston Tabb.
Mr. Tabb. There are actual costs and some service costs.
The actual costs have to do with continuing to have to pay
rental for storage for collections, rental of space which is
detrimental to those collections. We also have the problem that
books that are on the floor are being damaged because it is
impossible for people to move around the stacks without kicking
them and doing harm to the physical objects. And then there are
service costs--for example, difficulty in locating materials
for reader's in a timely fashion.
Mr. Hoyer. How much does that cost?
Mr. Tabb. The annual cost of the rental, I would have to
supply that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Off-Site Storage Cost
Extensive staff resources are required to continuously shift
collections remaining on Capitol Hill. This is time-consuming, is of
minimal benefit, has to be repeated frequently, and keeps staff from
other important activities. Productivity in retrieving material has
suffered as staff have been required to look in multiple places for an
item. Follow-up searches for material not found require significant
resources.
The delays in building subsequent modules has resulted in the
Library remaining in the environmentally-poor and expensive rental
facility at Landover, Maryland. Originally, we were expecting to vacate
Landover by 2006, the termination of the current 10-year lease. This is
no longer practical. Costs for this space for the last 6 years (FY
1997-2002) has totaled $3.44 million.
From a preservation perspective, material that is improperly housed
is subject to damage from water, poor support, kicking, etc. This
results in a potentially higher cost for preservation treatment,
recovery from water damage, replacement of damaged material, etc.
MANAGEMENT OF FACILITIES
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, this has been delayed beyond what
it should have been delayed. This is a critically necessary
facility and this delay is costing us a lot of money. We need
to get to the bottom of it.
Let me ask you, in addition, you have raised concerns for
the Library about the Architect's management of the Library
facilities, such as about fire protection. Have you considered
the idea of assuming from the Architect responsibility for the
facilities, particularly as it relates to fire protection?
General Scott. Yes, we have considered the possibility of
taking over some of the responsibilities. We are clearly
frustrated by the lack of progress which many of our projects
experience and we have had preliminary discussions with the
Architect and his staff about allowing the Library to assume
some responsibility for our internal projects. We came up with
a memorandum of understanding on a pilot effort, but the
Architect and his staff did not agree with that approach. The
Library is frustrated and we would consider looking at taking
over some of the responsibilities if the committee wanted us to
do that.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I presume my time has gone.
I have a lot of other questions, but I will submit them for the
record.
[The question submitted for the record by Mr. Hoyer
follow:]
Diversity
Question. Please provide data on the Library's Diversity
Recruitment and Staffing comparing FY 2002 to FY 1990.
Response. The Library has recorded significant gains in minority
employment since 1990. Minorities now comprise 24 percent of the
Library's Senior Level (Executive) workforce, compared with 12.4
percent in 1990. Minorities also now represent 23.3 percent of the
total workforce in Grades 13-15, gains from the 1990 level of 16.3
percent; and in Grades 9-12, minorities comprise 44.5 percent compared
with the 37.6 percent-level for 1990.
Question. How do your diversity recruitment and staffing compare to
other federal agencies?
Response. When the Library is compared with federal civilian
employers, it far surpasses the diversity found in their workforces.
Minorities in the Library comprise 23.9 percent of the Senior Pay Level
compared with 13.1 percent found in other federal agencies (Federal
government statistics courtesy of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Office of Workforce Information, March 5, 2002). In grades
13-15, minorities represent 23.5 percent in the Library, 19.7 percent
in the federal government. In grades 9-12, the Library exceeds the
federal government's 27.9 percent with its 42.7 percent.
Veterans' History Project
Question. You have requested additional funds and staff for the
Veterans' Oral History project authorized by the last Congress. Has
public interest in this project exceeded expectations, hence the need
for additional resources?
Response. The public interest has been overwhelming. The Library is
already receiving as many as 250 calls a day from the public as well as
responding to requests fro instruction kits, giving advice and
listening to memories. The Library also serves 220 Official Partner
organizations such as veterans service organizations, libraries,
museums, historical associations, schools and civic groups that provide
assistance in identifying veterans (as well as support personnel who
served our country), and recruiting volunteers to interview them. The
additional staff is needed to serve the public and to receive, catalog,
and begin to preserve the precious personal materials we are receiving
from those who have served our nation in wartime.
Sound-Recording Preservation Program
Question. Can you please provide an update on the status of the
sound-recording preservation program, for which funding is included in
your base request?
Response. The inaugural meeting of the National Recording
Preservation Board (NRPB) was held at the Library of Congress on March
12, 2002. The Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, welcomed the
20 Board members in attendance, outlined the broad objectives of the
National Recording Preservation Act, and introduced Marilyn Bergman,
President and Chairman of the Board of ASCAP, as the new NRPB chair.
The bulk of the day's discussion was devoted to two key topics:
establishing selection criteria and procedures for the National
Recording Registry, and identifying field-wide issues and needs to be
addressed in the Recording Preservation Study and Report. A consultant,
appointed by the Librarian, will be hired shortly to conduct the study
and report, which will identify crucial components of the National
Sound Recording Preservation Program. As a follow-up to the meeting,
the Library is establishing a NRPB Web site and listserv to facilitate
on-going dialogue among Board members.
House History Project
Question. Please provide an update on the history of the House
project, which you are coordinating but which receives no appropriated
funds.
Response. Historian Robert V. Remini has agreed to write the
History of the House of Representatives, pending funding. Professor
Remini is a widely respected biographer of American statesmen Henry
Clay, Daniel Webster, and Andrew Jackson. He is professor of history
emeritus at the University of Illinois Chicago and won a 1984 National
Book Award for his biography of Andrew Jackson. His other honors
include the American Historical Association Award for Scholarly
Distinction, the Carl Sandburg Award for Nonfiction, and the University
Scholar Award of the University of Illinois.
The Library is examining several funding options, including
foundation grants. The current timetable calls for the Library to begin
work on the House History this coming Fall.
Russian Leadership Program
Question. Please discuss the Open World Program, its new status,
board members, and the continuing need for the program in light of
U.S.-Russian relations.
Response. The following testimony I offered in the Senate, along
with that of the Center's board members, James W. Symington and James
F. Collins, amply describe the current status of the Open World
Program. In addition to the Library's comments, I am enclosing copies
of their statements and that of Lee Boothby, whose organization
represents one of the Open World's most successful hosting arrangements
and whose organization has also worked with alumni in Russia.
The Board of Trustees of the Center for Russian Leadership
Development met for the first time on March 7, 2002, at the Library of
Congress. The Board's Honorary Chairman, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK),
and all four of the leadership appointed Congressional trustees were
present: Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Bill Frist (R-TN);
Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY) and Bud Cramer (D-AL).
Board appointees from the private sector, appointed by the
Librarian of Congress, joined us by telephone: former Member of
Congress James W. Symington, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, James F.
Collins, and Anthony Richter of the Open Society Institute,
representing George Soros. One board vacancy remains to be filled.
The members elected the Librarian of Congress to serve as Chairman
for one year. Senator Levin and Representative Houghton will serve as
vice chairs for the same term. The Board approved an operating budget
of $15 million for 2002 including grants and contracts totaling $13.3
million. The board also approved the Center's FY 2003 appropriations
request. The members of the board intend to remain actively engaged
with the Center providing valuable, continuing oversight.
Finally, the board approved the formation of a corporate advisory
council and initial appointments to that council. The board
acknowledged receipt of current gifts and pledges totalling $2 million
and engaged in an active discussion of the center's opportunity for
private fund raising, to supplement the funds appropriated by Congress,
in accordance with the Center's authorizing legislation.
The Russian Leadership Program (as it was designated in its first
Congressional authorization) began in 1999 as a one-year pilot at the
Library of Congress. The law creating the pilot program (Public Law
106-31) presented the Library with the challenge of identifying and
bringing up to 3,000 young and emerging political leaders from Russia
to the United States for short-term stays to observe our democracy and
market economy in action.
This initial authorizing and funding legislation gave the library a
mere six months to launch and carry out the program. The leadership and
vision of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), at that time the Chairman of the
Joint Committee on the Library, recognized and seized a historic
opportunity to improve U.S.-Russian relations at one of their lowest
points since the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union. Now
nearly three years later, U.S.-Russian relations are in a dramatically
different and more positive condition in the wake of the terrorist
attacks of September 11.
The United States and Russia are now addressing, in a more
cooperative way than in recent times, a wide range of critical issues
such as rule of law, security, trade, and the global fight against
terrorism. A second summit is scheduled for May in Moscow between
President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and
dialogue is reviving between the American business community and the
Russian economic sector (led by the U.S.-Russian Business Council and
the American Chamber of Commerce in Moscow).
The role that can be played in the Legislative Branch by the Center
for Russian Leadership Development is suggested by its origin in April
1999. Throughout its brief history, the Russian Federation has called
this program ``Open World,'' a term that we have now adopted for
official use in both the United States and Russia.
HISTORY
At a breakfast meeting of 25 Members of Congress from both Houses
and both parties during the NATO engaged in Kosovo, I reported that
U.S. actions in the Balkans had produced severe strains in U.S.-Russian
relations and, when asked, ``What can be done?'', I repeated a
suggestion made to past CODELs that I had accompanied to the former
Soviet Union: the need to replicate for Russia that small part of the
Marshall Plan that had brought the new post-war generation of political
leaders from a former adversary to the United States to experience the
workings of an open democratic society.
Many Members of Congress were eager to discuss this idea. Senator
Stevens moved quickly to draft legislation and to provide funding for a
pilot in the supplemental appropriations bill on Kosovo, which was
signed in six weeks (Public Law 106-31). The Library rapidly organized
a program that brought 2,150 young Russians to America in just over
five months.
In late 1999, Congress extended the pilot for a second year (Public
Law 106-113) and in 2001 for a third. It has become more focused on key
issues for Russian reform, and has been extraordinarily well received
by American hosts.
The ``Open World'' Russian Leadership program has been a success
and deserves the Subcommittee's continued support:
It links and engages legislature to legislature and community-to-
community. Russian leaders have come to date from 88 of Russia's 89
regions and have been hosted in over 700 communities in 48 states and
the District of Columbia.
Open World engages a ``people-to-people'' diplomacy unequaled in
scope and impact since the Fulbright-Hays exchange program and the
Peace Corps.
the center for russian leadership development (public law 106-54)
Three years after its founding, the Open World Program is still
housed at the Library of Congress, but it is independently managed by
the new Center for Russian Leadership Development, created by the
Congress (Public Law 106-554). The Center is overseen by a
distinguished Board of Trustees, many of whom were among the earliest
supporters of Senator Stevens' initiative in drafting the enacting
legislation. Senator Stevens himself serves as active and committed
Honorary Chairman.
WHY SHOULD CONGRESS CONTINUE ITS SUPPORT?
Having a constructive, more open relationship with Russia--which is
what prompted the Senate to authorize and fund the program in 1999--is
even more crucial now for the United States, in light of our need for
Russia's continued partnership in the global fight against terrorism.
The United States needs to engage the leadership and people of
Russia--at all levels--at this critical juncture in the relations
between our two nations. The Open World Program is a necessary, viable,
and key partner in the U.S. government's engagement with Russia at many
complementary levels:
Open World is an important means for the U.S. Congress to engage
both the Russian Parliament and Russia's regional and local leaders on
the issues that are paramount to our evolving relations, particularly
the issues of security and trade--the focal points of Open World's 2002
parliamentary program.
In 2002, we propose to bring Russian parliamentary delegations to
work with their American counterparts on such key issues as Jackson-
Vanik, WTO accession, money laundering, banking and land reform, and
combating global terrorism, and, most importantly, rule of law, which
is key to all other reforms and overall political and economic
stability in Russia.
The Open World Program has led the way, for the past three years,
in reviving public diplomacy with Russia at the community-to-community
and people-to-people levels. The key element of the program remains
constant: short-term stays by current and future political leaders who
have not before visited the United States and who do not speak English
(thus making them unlikely to be chosen by other U.S. exchange
programs).
The heroes of Open World are the American organizations and host
families that make it possible for the program to operate on such a
large scale with such modest funding and with such spectacular results.
Ten days in America can make a great difference to a Russian who has
never before visited this country. We continually evaluate our criteria
for selection and the programs offered to our participants.
The first question we are often asked is about the short length of
stay. We are bringing active political leaders with day-to-day
responsibilities and ongoing involvement in building democracy and a
market economy in Russia. The time we ask them to spend is all they can
spare. Despite its brevity, the U.S. stay can still bring about a
dramatic change in understanding and attitude. Follow-up communications
between hosts and guests and between host communities and Open World
participants express the nature of the experience most eloquently:
``I equate the eleven days I spent in the U.S. with eleven years of
my life (in terms of the exchange of information, the wide spectrum of
professional discourse, and the opportunity to get acquainted with
another culture and people).''
--Judge Mikhail Tarasov,
Deputy Chair, Novgorod City Court,
Head of the Novgorod Oblast Council of Judges,
Host: Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith,
U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania.
``I truly believe these visits will have, over time, an historic
impact on the development of Russian democracy.''
--Judge Michael M. Mihm,
U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois,
Member, Judicial Conference Committee on
International Judicial Relations.
``I give the highest possible rating to the preparation and
organization of the program for Russian judges . . . We had the
opportunity to spend time with judges, court employees, lawyers,
prosecutors, journalists, and state congressmen . . . During the visit
to America I was convinced that there is a great deal in common between
American and Russian jurists and between the American and Russian
people. And we must take steps to bring our countries closer
together.''
--Judge Alimzhan Shaimerdyanov,
Chair, Aleksandrov City Court,
Head of the Vladimir Oblast Council of Judges,
Host: Judge Michael M. Mihm,
U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois.
The thanks for these results rest with our American volunteer hosts
who are also affected and rewarded for their participation in the Open
World program:
``We host many visitors and this group was definitely among the
best--they were well selected, highly qualified and very engaged. We
thoroughly enjoyed hosting this delegation and were highly impressed
with their professionalism and level of interest. Through such an
exchange, both sides--the Russian and the American--can only benefit as
longstanding, productive relationships are initiated and a great amount
of information is exchange.''
--Sylvia L. Nimmo,
Friendship Force Local Host Coordinator.
results--what can open world achieve
The Open World brief stays are catalysts in three areas:
They are catalysts for dramatic changes in attitude. Experiencing
the reality of the United States rather than absorbing the distortion
of American popular culture portrayed in television, film, and music
helps dispel stereotypes embedded in Soviet-era anti-American
propaganda;
The visits are--in a large number of cases--``life-changing''
experiences that leave participants with the ability to imagine
solutions to the many obstacles in the Russia's path to democracy and a
market economy;
Most significantly--for the future--Open World fosters ties between
people and communities that help promote systemic changes long after
the visits have ended.
Let me cite just a few examples:
Open World's Rule of Law program brings Russian judges to the
United States to be hosted by senior U.S. federal and state judges. A
total of 163 Russian judges participated in 2000-2001. Our plans to
bring 300 judges in 2002 coincide with Russia's preparations to
implement recently enacted judicial reforms. Our partner in this effort
is the Judicial Conference of the United States. Many of the American
judges who have participated--led by Judge Paul Magnuson of Minnesota
and Judge Michael Mihm of Illinois--are actively seeking to establish
U.S.-Russian ``sister court'' relationships to further promote key
concepts of court administration and judicial ethics in Russia.
A grant to the American International Health Alliance (AIHA)
approved at our Board meeting last week will bring key political
leaders from five Russian regions on a pilot basis to advance a model
of healthy communities to combat Russia's overwhelming health crises.
Pilot sites in both the United States and Russia are being carefully
chosen to create the optimal linkage between U.S. host communities and
participating Russian communities.
CONCLUSION
President Putin's call to President Bush immediately after the
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11 set in
motion a dramatic realignment in U.S.-Russian relations. President
Putin is advancing bold and ambitious reforms on many topics; the
upcoming U.S.-Russian Summit has many unresolved issues as the two
nations seek to address security, trade, and anti-terrorism agendas.
Understanding of these common goals remains, however, less well
understood within the 50 states that make up the United States and the
89 regions that constitute the Russian Federation. The Open World
Program is unique among American exchange efforts. The Center's
mission, scope, and results enable it to advance the overall U.S.
agenda with Russia. It has been praised by business leaders, NGO
leaders, political leaders, and citizens in both nations.
This Subcommittee's support is essential. The Center's FY 2003
budget request seeks to restore our initial funding level of $10
million and absorb inflation in the United States and Russia over three
years and the costs to be reimbursed to the Library for housing the
Center, and the costs of applying the lessons learned over three years
to provide the highest-quality program possible to 2,500 Russian
political leaders in 2002.
The United States has painfully discovered the consequences of
abandoning public diplomacy and engagement in Afghanistan and other
nations of the Muslim world. Russia is a key ally in the global war
against terrorism. It is home to vast natural resources, huge and often
ill-secured reserves of weapons-grade plutonium, and the world's
largest land-mass with a largely unsecured border with China. The
reasons to support our budget request for FY 2003 are straighforward:
The Open World Program is identifying and bringing to the
United States the leaders throughout Russia who will be the United
States' partners at negotiations on security, trade, and other issues
in 2002 and beyond.
An investment of $10 million from the Congress in that
next generation of leaders is a smart and economic step toward ensuring
the future.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Abraham Lincoln Commission
Mr. Taylor. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. Let me just say I offer my thanks to the
Library for the good services you have provided to the Abraham
Lincoln Commission, which is a commission established by
Congress to study what we should be doing to celebrate the
200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And the
Library has been extraordinarily helpful to the Commission in
getting it established and getting ourselves organized, and we
are grateful to you for that.
Congress' Utilization of Library's Resources
If I could ask one question, how often, how frequently do
the Members of Congress take advantage of the Library of
Congress?
Dr. Billington. Well, quite a lot. It is increasing,
particularly use of the Members Room, which has had--I think we
calculated that almost every Member of Congress has been in the
Members Room--oftentimes more than once--for the various
Members Congressional Caucus groups, and the Members Reading
Room, which is increasing although still not as much usage as
we would like to see.
In terms of tours, I was here when you were talking about
tours of the Capitol. The beautiful restoration which the
Congress made to the Jefferson building has made it an
extraordinary attraction, and the tours which are largely
conducted by volunteers are growing tremendously. We now have
the permanent rotating exhibit of the treasures of America and
the treasures of the world both up, and these are very popular
with constituents and with the same people who are touring the
Capitol. So I think the realization is growing and I think we
will grow more now that the tunnel has been approved from the
Capitol Visitor Center to the Library's Jefferson Building; one
of the historic functions of the Congress has been to preserve
the creative legacy of the American people by copyright deposit
and by the other voluntary deposits and acquisitions that we
have made over the years and they continue to be made. And I
think there is more and more awareness of it by Members of
Congress and their constituents and more and more use of it.
Digital Futures Initiatives
But the cow needs to be milked, and of course CRS and the
Law Library I should mention as well, because the Law Library,
which is the largest law library in the world, is also
participating in this transformation in going into the digital
age with its global legal information network, and it has very
carefully planned to scale that up from 15 countries to 50
countries.
That is an important part of the general way in which we
are bringing the digital world into the Library world so it is
all of one piece and you could have one-stop shopping for
information in the future. Congress has made steady usage of
the Library and it is increasing. We are always anxious to know
how we can be more responsive.
Certainly the Lincoln Commission, the Lewis and Clark
Commission, and the Veterans History Project, have had
wonderful cooperation from the Congress with that. The
Veteran's History Project was a congressional initiative which
we are executing and many Congressmen are actually interviewing
or helping arrange for the local institutions to get involved
in interviewing the millions of American veterans who should be
interviewed for this project.
So I think more and more it is happening. I could give you
more detail.
Use of Library's Resources
Mr. LaHood. Let me just say this. What I have tried to
persuade people that have come from Illinois and my district is
that the Library of Congress is the most beautiful building bar
none in Washington, D.C., particularly if you can have a tour
of it. People always want to go to the White House and take a
tour of the Capitol, but I try to push as many people as I can
to the Library because it is the most extraordinarily beautiful
building in Washington.
But I wonder, could you just--and I know our time is
limited--as succinctly as you can tell the subcommittee how you
go about educating and encouraging Members of Congress to use
the facilities, to use the Member Room, to use the Reading
Room. I am just curious about that.
Dr. Billington. Well, we do send regular mailings to
Members of Congress to inform them of our services and
facilities that are available to them. CRS and the Library
sponsor a retreat every two years for new House members in
Williamsburg, Virginia. We have briefings and we do quite a
lot. But maybe we could do more. There are also concerts, movie
showings, and lectures that members are invited to. We had a
whole series on every movie shown Congress, which was a very
large number.
Of course, mailings come regularly to your office, but we
would appreciate your suggestions of how we can do more and
when there are specific initiatives, such as the ones that we
have for Lewis and Clark, the ones that we have for the Lincoln
Commission, the ones that we have for the Veterans History
Project, we make an important point to inform the Members who
are particularly interested.
We are working closely with the Joint Committee on the
Library, the oldest joint committee of the Congress. We have
had a couple of briefings with their staff and we recently had
an evening with most members of the Committee in attendance. So
we try to get the word out as best we can. I think the main
point is our increasingly electronic services and those CRS are
providing, as well as the others that we have.
In summary we have provided briefings, the new Member
retreat, our Web site information, and tours. There were over
100 congressional events held last year in the Jefferson
Building. So I think the awareness of it is increasing and the
use of it is increasing by Members. That is in addition to the
normal usage.
Once the building is connected organically with the tunnel
to the Capitol Visitor Center, I hope that the usage will
increase still more.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you very much.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Kaptur.
VISITOR CENTER
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, and I wanted to
acknowledge our Chairman's hard work on trying to build this
Visitor Center and to take his own interest in history and make
it more available to the millions of people who come here every
year. And so thanks, Chairman Taylor, very much and welcome,
Dr. Billington and General Scott. We are very happy to have you
and your hard working staff with us today, and I envy all your
jobs.
I began my life working as a page in a library and it was
one of the greatest experiences in my life, and I still miss
it, believe it or not.
INTEGRATED REFERENCE SYSTEM
I have several questions, one dealing with sort of an issue
that I need help on and maybe you can give me some direction.
In my own work I have a great interest in racial and ethnic
histories. And as I travel across our country, I end up in all
these museums and archives that really are local and not
national. An example, in the City of Cleveland there is a
Ukrainian museum and archives. And what is it? It is a giant
house full of documents from the Diaspora. It is unbelievable.
That is not even my district. Through volunteers, they are
putting up, trying to catalog all this information.
And I go to Chicago, I go to the Polish museum and I look
at what is there, and it is more local and not national. One of
my questions to you really is, how would I go about getting a
list of where these places exist in this country and the nature
of their collections and how they could be integrated into the
information systems that we have? Is that a Library of Congress
job or is that a Smithsonian Institution job?
And believe me those aren't the only ones. I am sure I
haven't found all the ones that exist. I know there are some in
New York, in the southwest in Texas. I just don't know where
one would even get a list of these institutions, and they are
not libraries.
Dr. Billington. The question of--and I will get Winston
Tabb up here in a minute to talk about it because it is a
question of how you get comprehensive--there are several parts
of your question. How do you get comprehensive bibliographical
information about where all the information on the Ukrainian
Diaspora is, for instance? Let me mention a couple of things.
First of all, we have been activating, and Mr. Tabb can tell
you much more about it, an integrated reference system whereby
you can get that kind of information by calling us. We have a
collaborative relationship with other libraries around the
country so it isn't too difficult to use us as a central point
of entry into a network of information providers on this.
NDIIPP--LIBRARY'S ROLE
Secondly, if you want to talk about actually getting the
materials integrated into a national collection, that is part
of the eventual digital virtual library, because we now have 36
other institutions in America that contribute to the national
digital library. It is now up to about 7\1/2\ million digital
items of American history and culture. We are now getting into
a position of where we want to get more diversity. There has
been a lot of diversity right from our own collections, but as
we have gone out in America--we raised $2 million from
Ameritech a few years ago and had a national competition and
everybody came up with proposals of historical materials that
ought to be put on-line that is not just the bibliographic
information about them, but some of the most interesting
material----.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. CENTER
Ms. Kaptur. Could I just interject, Doctor? I just
remembered another place I visited. Department of the Interior
runs the Martin Luther King Center down in Atlanta and I
visited there. I was exceedingly impressed with the videos and
collections there, and I said, wow, I've got to get my school
system to tap in here. Do you know there is no way to share
that information from down in Atlanta through the Department of
the Interior up to a district like mine or every other district
in this country? I was shocked.
And so I don't even know the dimension of my question. All
I know is there is information out there that people can't get
to if people don't live in the area. And in fact the
Ukrainians, to complicate it further, one of their goals in
Cleveland is to restore this information back to Ukraine
someday. So there is an international dimension to this.
I would like to maybe work with you to figure out how one
would even identify these places, maybe survey our Members. I
don't think I even have any institutions in my district, but as
I have gone around my country, I see this hole that needs to be
filled in from a collection standpoint.
Dr. Billington. Well, first of all, another part of your
question, the Library of Congress is the right place, because
this is a kind of information. If it is manuscript information,
if it is published information, we are the right central
national institution to be involved in this. But I think that
the point is once it is on the Internet, and our entire
bibliographic record is on the Internet, so everything we have
published is on the Internet, that is a form of reference and
it is available everywhere in the world and available in the
Ukraine. We have a lot of downloading from our information in
the Ukraine. Potentially with both the virtual library that we
are creating of original documents and materials on-line, there
could be a section from this or from other ethnic groups
getting their materials on-line. We already have some things
like that. And secondly, there is information beyond what is
already on-line from our catalog, which is entirely on-line.
There is information through this reference service, and maybe
I will give it to Mr. Tabb.
AMERICAN FOLKLIFE CENTER
Mr. Tabb. I only had two additional points. First, getting
a list of these museums or these kinds of entities. We have
some lists of this sort. Second, I think the kind of thing you
are interested in is very much part of our American Folklife
Center's mission. This is an organization that has been at the
Library for 25-plus years, which was made permanent by Congress
2 years ago.
What I would like to suggest is that I come over with the
Director of the American Folklife Center and talk with you
about ways in which that group, which comprises Members
appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate leadership
and representatives of various Federal agencies is really
wanting over the next few years to think about ways of more
fully documenting groups like the Ukrainians and others who
come to the United States and have become American, but bring
their own traditions and meld them into the fabric of America.
So if I could, I would like to schedule a follow-up visit.
UKRAINE ARCHIVE
Ms. Kaptur. I would really appreciate that because it is
even hard for me to probably state the question I am asking.
All I know is I stumble over all these questions and I know
they are valuable. Certainly some of the documents from Ukraine
that these people brought, news letters and news letters from
the camps--I certainly know that doesn't exist over there, I
mean back where these people came from. Oh, I would really
enjoy that. I think this is a whole area that we are now in our
third century, we can unearth and ultimately share back and
also share--when I mentioned Martin Luther King Center down in
Atlanta, those collections should be available to students and
teachers across this country.
Dr. Billington. We have had extensive discussions. There
are problems of who owns things because when we put everything
online--you must realize everything is free. It is a free
public good, and if somebody feels that they own intellectual
property or there is some doubt as to who really owns a
document or some controversy we can't resolve, we have to
respect that because we are in the free public good business.
We are the cornerstone of the great American public library
tradition, which is open and free to everybody. We are putting
this material online and therefore questions of ownership have
to be considered--but I think probably this Ukrainian archive
you are referring to would not be difficult.
JOINT COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS
Ms. Kaptur. And now I have so many questions. I get so
excited about this, I can't get off of it, but I have requests
from teachers in a diverse community like mine for materials
that could help them help their students become interculturally
competent. So I think that this particular center could be very
helpful to us in terms of just information that is unearthed
and organized in some reasonable way. I have been very
surprised to hear this request from teachers in our public
school systems because I would have thought those kinds of
materials would be easily available. Apparently not, even from
very experienced teachers from across our country.
With 9/11 and all the other issues, it seems these kinds of
collections and their enhancements could be very helpful to the
republic.
Dr. Billington. Absolutely, and we have several joint
collaborative projects. There is Meeting of the Frontiers
Project with the Russians, which has our materials and the
materials of the two national libraries of Russia. There is an
agreement with two institutions of Spain, the National Library
of Spain and the Library of Columbus' Son, the Columbina in
Seville, under the Archbishop of Seville. Both are very
interesting, wonderful collections with early history of
Spanish things.
We are working on a project with Brazil. We are talking
with the Vatican. Our marvelous Chief of Staff, Jo Ann Jenkins,
was just over there talking with them about a project.
So we are going to be bringing a variety of different
cultures and materials on-line in joint agreements with foreign
people who want to collaborate with us, and I think this will
help enrich this as well.
ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN FOLKLIFE
I think Mr. Tabbs' suggestion about the Archives of
American Folklife is absolutely right. That was founded in 1976
precisely by the Congress because in celebrating the
Bicentennial of the country they wanted to celebrate a little
bit more of the popular, the diversity, and so forth.
Ms. Kaptur. And Senator Warner chaired that. Senator Warner
was one of the co-chairs of that.
Dr. Billington. And Mrs. Boggs was champion, Senator
Hatfield, many others, and that is the perfect instrument and
we have real dynamic leadership there and a good board and
permanent status, thanks to the Congress a couple of years ago,
as Mr. Tabb was saying. I think that is a good way of following
up on that.
VISITOR CENTER
Ms. Kaptur. I would appreciate that very much, and I am
going to turn to a different subject very quickly, and we
talked a little bit about the Visitor Center and I have
questions more for the Architect more than you on this issue
but I wanted to sensitize you to it.
For a very long time I have tried to get the art work and
the collections that are displayed in the Capitol more
representative of the contributions of women to American life.
It has been an unbelievably difficult road, and I only tell you
this because as the new Visitor Center is built and if the
tunnel is successful and whatever artifacts are put in there
and however we choose to use visuals, I would just hope half of
our population not be ignored and that Pocahontas not be the
only person people see when they come through the Capitol. We
really have to think hard about this because we want to be
historic and we also want to be accurate. We also have to think
about our youth coming through here and the images that they
see and what influences them and whether they could be here and
whether their lives mattered in the lives of their mothers and
grandmothers in the history of the United States. I think we
need to do a much better job of this.
The first time I asked this question the first response I
got back from the Architect, well, Congresswoman, we got a lot
of paintings done by women. I said that is important, but also
the way that we represent what they have done is important. So
I hope you can play a constructive role as we move forward on
this.
AMERICAN WOMEN
Dr. Billington. Thank you. We currently have on display the
Margaret Meade exhibit, one of our great pioneers of modern
anthropology. We have also just published a marvelous guide to
the study of women's history in the Library of Congress. It is
an enormous guide.
It is one of its kind and is interesting and fun to read.
We will get you a copy of course. It has just been published.
We have an earlier one called the African American Mosaic,
which was a definitive bibliography of the rich variety of
movies, posters, handbills, and other items. We have a
marvelous archive of women's history, including a great deal
that is on-line, so that for your teachers who want to stress
the role of women, for example, Susan B. Anthony papers, all
kinds of other important things in the history of the women's
movement, we have whole archives on this and it is discussed in
this publication in an interesting way that you can share with
others.
We are certainly conscious of this, and I appreciate your
mentioning it.
Ms. Kaptur. You reminded me of something. When I wrote my
book, Women of Congress: A 20th Century Odyssey, I thought it
would be an easy book to write. And what I found around the
country had archives that had never been gone into. I have a
painting of Mary Norton from Jersey City, New Jersey, a very
significant figure in the history of this Congress. And she had
written an autobiography and it was only available at the
Jersey City Public Library. I couldn't believe that that was
the only place that this was housed.
I would encourage people in your institution especially if
women Members have written about themselves or their lives or
the early women and some of their collections, that needs to be
made a part of whatever you have over there. I actually was
discouraged as I went around and thought this is how much they
were thought of that they had to--Frances Bolton, who had
enormous wealth, was able to hire a writer to tell her story.
But it was amazing to me these forgotten collections all
around the country. So it was a very hard book to write because
I had to piece together a lot of it myself. But I would
encourage you to look at those collections and digitize them or
something so they are out there.
Senator Margaret Chase Smith of course had the Big Little
House up in Maine, where she has a lot of those materials. She
knew what she did was very significant, but it isn't easily
available. None of this is put together in a way that other
countries can use it.
So I would mention that as an aside.
Dr. Billington. We have been working with the Museum of the
First Ladies that is in Ohio. Mr. Tabb, would you like to add?
Mr. Tabb. No.
Dr. Billington. But I think when he brings over Peggy
Bulger, our dynamic head of the Archive of American Folklife,
you can talk to her about this, too, because there may be some
acquisitions or things that we ought to be trying to acquire
for the national collection or thinking of digitizing in the
future, and we certainly welcome input from teachers. Our whole
digital effort is designed to enrich the educational experience
of Americans and we need to have input from teachers. We have
had input from numbers of teachers and we want to get more of
their thoughts as to what they need to make the teaching
experience more real.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Moran. Would the gentlelady yield just in the context
of fleshing out the whole of history. This building, as I
understand it, was actually constructed by slaves. There is no
way that you would ever know that in going through the history
of the Capitol. And it might be interesting to have some of
that history reflected, which I think is part of the fleshing
out process of history. So if the Library of Congress had
anything about that, I think that would be of interest to
people.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman for that suggestion and
support him in that. The history of laboring people is often
forgotten in the collections of the world. That is for sure.
I wanted to ask a very simple question, 10-second answer,
the heating, cooling and power you receive at the Library of
Congress, does it come from the Capitol power plant or do you
acquire it otherwise?
General Scott. We get all of those from the Capitol power
plant.
RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP CENTER/PROGRAM
Ms. Kaptur. And then a final question, and this deals with
the Russian Leadership Program and I have a deep interest, as
do you, Dr. Billington, in the entire former Soviet Union and I
know that there is some primacy given to the Russian exchange
as opposed to including Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, many of the
other countries. I would have to say that this troubles me and
I just wanted to put it on the record. Maybe we can think
through what can be done to augment the important beginnings
you have made with the Russian exchange program.
I think the policy of our country toward the former Soviet
Union is totally lopsided, and it is not only the Library but
let me give you an example from the Agriculture Committee. If
you look at food donations and assistance we have given to
Russia compared to Ukraine during this transition period, there
is absolutely no comparison, 1 billion to maybe a million or a
few million dollars. It is so lopsided. Both countries are
important. The smaller countries around, Moldova, Belarus, very
important. In fact Belarus is struggling more than many of the
countries in the region.
I would just appreciate any thinking you could give us on
how to expand your leadership program to include these other
countries, because they all have to move forward. And I don't
think that us sending a signal that this is more important than
this is a proper approach from the government of the United
States. So it isn't your fault. It was mandated by the
Congress. You obviously agree and know that this is important,
but I just would urge you to give me any thinking you might
have on how to broaden this.
UKRANIAN CENTRAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
Back in February, we received a letter from the Ukrainian
Central Information System, which is a group of people in our
country and on our continent concerned about that particular
nation, asking is there any way, we are facing these elections
in Ukraine and we know all the problems, we need help. I have
traveled over there several times. I co-chaired the Ukrainian
Caucus here. And the exclusion of these other countries is
troubling to me. And I am wondering if you have given any
thought to that. How do we broaden this? What can we do? They
all need help and they need it yesterday.
Dr. Billington. Well, I sympathize very much with what you
are saying and appreciate the passion and concern as well as
the substance of what you are saying and I share it. I think
there are several ways this could be done. One could add this
to the existing program. We have an independent board which has
just met for the first time. So it has an independent status
and it would be perfectly possible to fold it in. Whether it
was folded in or set up perhaps as a supplementary program, it
should begin as the Russian Leadership Program did, with a
pilot to test it and see how it would best work. In the
situation in Ukraine, I quite agree with you. I think the need
in Ukraine, if anything, is perhaps even greater. They don't
have oil and energy to export so--and of course it is a great
historic country, much the size of France. And these other
places are important as well.
So we would be happy to be responsive to the Congress on
this. I would think it should begin with some kind of pilot
program. It could have a separate existence or be incorporated
into it. It would be a shame, I think to just carve it out of
the existing program because the existing program really has
tremendous momentum. And our relations with Russia are at a
crucial stage. And even our relations with the Ukraine
ultimately depend on having the democratic experiments succeed
in Russia because if they turn into an inward looking
nationalist direction, the first people who will know it and
will suffer from it are their close neighbors in the Ukraine.
So I quite agree that Ukraine is extremely important, as
Moldova and Belarus that you mentioned. Others have mentioned
Georgia, where we now have a special interest in the war on
terrorism as a possibility. So we would be very receptive to
whatever the Congress would instruct us to do, but I would just
urge that it be additive rather than subtractive because you
know, the old origins of this is attempting to replicate in
some small way what we did with the Marshall Plan. 1.5 percent
of the Marshall Plan was spent bringing young Germans over.
That made all the difference. It is probably worth everything
else because these are not unintelligent people and they are
clear, certainly in the Ukraine as they are in Russia, that
they are trying to launch a democratic experiment. It is just
that they have never, most of them, had the firsthand
experience of seeing how it works in a community, in a total
immersion kind of program such as this is.
We would be very supportive of this, but we appreciate we
must respond to our instructions from the Congress.
Ms. Kaptur. And I am not against Tajikistan and Kazakhstan.
In fact, they are very important in all of this. But just to
pick only one country makes me really uncomfortable. And so if
we could augment it in some way, I appreciate your openness on
that.
As a part of your program, do you ever have extra books
that you are able to mail to Russian libraries, books written
in English. Have they asked you for this as a part of this
program?
Dr. Billington. We have done some of that. We have done
some sending of books and we have gotten others to encourage
others to do this, but I don't know.
We have exchanges of course, very extensive exchanges with
institutions in Ukraine.
Ms. Kaptur. I would just mention Ukraine. In the event that
you do have extra books, I know you know of Kyiv-Mohyla in
Kiev, and their counterpart academy, which is a rural academy
called Ostro Academy. They are looking for books in English.
Dr. Billington. And that is where the first Slavic Bible--
first publication in the Slavic world.
Ms. Kaptur. I had visited their library. In fact, I was
shocked when I went in there. They have these incredible old
documents and collections. There are no--what do you call it
when you control something for humidity--climate control, and I
saw these things and I thought, oh, my goodness, and they are
sitting out there in these little glass cases and it is so
valuable. And I just think the library collections of that part
of the world, boy, you could really make a difference there and
they want it and they mainly now--they don't even know what we
can do with climate control with some of these historic books.
Dr. Billington. We have had some librarians from Ukraine on
the Soros fellowships and other exchanges, so we had some from
Ukraine but----
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Clerk's note.--Following are the questions submitted to be
answered for the record from Ms. Kaptur.]
Congressional Research Service--Staff Training Programs
Question. The programs offered by CRS and the Library are very
important for our staffs. Can you tell me what procedure you follow for
evaluating these programs to determine which programs should be
continued, discontinued, or added?
Response. Program evaluation is accomplished through both formal
and informal feedback. Evaluations are distributed at every CRS
training program and seminar and are tailored for the specific event,
but most focus on content, relevancy, handouts and logistics, as well
as speaker expertise and presentation. Attendees are also encouraged to
include narrative comments. The evaluations are reviewed by CRS Program
Section staff, speakers, and senior management. Annual reviews of
program attendance statistics are also important. Other feedback is
obtained through surveys of congressional staff, the CRS Comment Line
(202-707-3915), and for comments obtained through other outreach
efforts such as the House Services Fair. CRS utilizes the information
obtained to assess: (1) the value its programs to the Congress; (2) the
frequency of presentations (given resource constraints and attendance);
and (3) modifications (additions or deletions that would be advisable
to better meet congressional needs) as expressed in feedback and in
conformity with CRS' statutory mission.
Question. Which programs are most frequently requested that you do
not currently offer? Why are these programs not offered?
Response. CRS is currently unable to accommodate all congressional
staff who want to attend the CRS District/State Staff Institute, which
is offered only three times each year. This three-day program offers
practical guidance on the work of those offices. Despite the high
demand for attendance, CRS has not been able to offer the program more
often and must limit attendance to one representative from a Member
office, due to staffing shortages in CRS. However, CRS hopes to expand
the number of Institutes with the anticipated hiring of two new event
planners in June or July of 2002. CRS has also received requests for
writing classes.
Question. What programs do you offer that can assist staff in
improving writing and other general skills? Are there writing and other
skills training programs offered to congressional staff by entities
other than CRS?
Response. Writing courses fall outside of CRS's statutory mandate
and are offered by the Office of Training, Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO). For example, CAO offers a course entitled ``Effective Business
Writing'' as part of its employee development and orientation program.
The course is specifically tailored for House staff and teaches how to
``effectively and professionally write business correspondence and e-
mail to customers and colleagues.'' This course is offered twice a
month. More information about this course and others offered by the CAO
can be found at http://onlinecao/trainingcatalog.
While not providing specific programs on writing and other general
skills, CRS does offer a wide range of self-help materials to assist
congressional staff. Print publications such as Speechwriting and
Delivery (InfoPack 139S) and holiday related information such as
Memorial Day: Speech Material (InfoPack 376M) are very popular.
Comprehensive information on speechwriting can be found on the CRS Web
site at http://www.crs.gov/reference/general/speechwriting.shtml. CRS
recently introduced a new CD-ROM presentation entitled Grants Work in a
Congressional Office. This PowerPoint briefing with audio narration
provides comprehensive information on how to handle requests for grants
and federal domestic assistance for district and state offices.
Detailed information for congressional staff on grants can be found on
the CRS Web site at http://www.crs.gov/reference/general/
grantsinfo.shtml.
WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORY
Question. I am interested in learning more about your Veterans
History Project. As you know, the World War II Memorial is currently
under construction. Veterans from our greatest generation are passing
away with greater frequency, taking with them priceless accounts of
their experiences and feelings. What are you doing to try to collect
these recollections so that they can offer the personal side of the
history of the world-changing period?
Response. The Veterans History Project (VHP) was charged by
Congress to collect the first-hand accounts of veterans of World War II
and other wars on audio and video-tape and as written memoirs, along
with documentary evidence such as letters, diaries, and photographs.
These are the records of the everyday ``unsung'' heroes of our American
fight for freedom and democracy. This is a national educational and
volunteer project. To date, the Library has 220 Official Partner
organizations participating in identifying veterans (as well as support
personnel who served our country), and recruiting volunteers to
interview them. These partners include organizations such as veterans
service organizations, libraries, museums, historical associations,
schools, and civic groups. The Library is providing complete
instructions and examples on a web site and are distributing 40,000
instruction kits. Most of the responses the Library has received are
from WW II veterans, even though the mandate includes WW I and the
Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf Wars. If is early in the project, and
we expect to hear from thousands of WW II veterans and their families.
Question. To the extent that you are collecting this information,
how would veterans who have something to offer know how to contact you?
Response. Veterans are finding the Library on its Web site,
www.loc.gov/veterans are and calling on our toll-free message line:
888-371-5848. The Veterans History Project is being publicized through
our corporate partner, AARP, and outlets such as Readers Digest, CNN,
and the Washington Post. The major veterans organizations have
publicized the program, as is being done the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs and through other official partners. The Library has
completed three mailings to all Members of Congress urging them to
contact their veterans groups, speak about the project, and help get
the word out. We are hearing from as many as 250 people a day.
Question. Have you yet identified other collections that should be
included with this veterans project?
Response. Yes. The Library is identifying other veterans oral
history projects around the country, mostly in colleges, universities,
and military archives. We have a cooperative relationship with many of
them. We are not attempting to collect all of their material at the
Library; instead, we direct those who are interested to these other
resources. All repositories of veterans histories will ultimately be
linked via the Internet to the Library's Veterans History Project
website.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. By the way, the 8
million items that are being digitized will be available all
over the world through the Internet in English, and the Russian
items that are being digitized will be in both languages, as
well as the rest of the world, including the Ukraine. So that
is available even as we are speaking.
Dr. Billington, General Scott, I appreciate it. I know you
have almost 5,000 FTEs. The problems of hiring and maintaining
a work force that large is always a challenge, especially with
the rules you have to work with. But I would like to thank you
and your staff for the bread and butter areas, providing the
largest library in the world, maintaining it, making it
available to Congress and at the same time cooperating with the
rest of the libraries in the country and in the world. The work
of the CRS to serve the Members of Congress as we try to serve
our constituents. The fine work that you have been doing in
digitizing, as you mentioned, in Spain, the Vatican, Russia,
and other parts of the world, because that collection goes into
our library supplementing the items that we have there as well
as providing for young people and teachers through pilot
programs that the Library is now functioning with, and also
your courage to promote exchanges with Russia and perhaps
others in the future. We thank you for the service and all of
your staff, and thank you for coming today, and this hearing is
concluded.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WITNESSES
ROBERT T. MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
ANDREW M. SHERMAN, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
R. BRUCE HOLSTEIN, COMPTROLLER
CHARLES C. COOK, SR., SUPERINTENDENT OF CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
MANAGEMENT
WILLIAM M. GUY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET OFFICE
GPO Budget Request
Mr. Taylor. The Legislative Branch Subcommittee will come
back to order. The subcommittee will now consider the fiscal
year 2003 budget for the Government Printing Office.
We want to welcome all of you gentlemen here today. The
budget request totals $122,445,000. This is an increase of
$7,806,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. There are
two appropriation accounts involved, the Congressional Printing
and Binding Appropriation, $90.1 million, and the
Superintendent of Document program, $32.3 million.
Mr. Mansker, would you like to introduce your staff? You
can submit your prepared statement for the record, but you can
open with comments as you or your staff would like.
Mr. Mansker. Thank you, Chairman Taylor and Congressman
Hoyer. It is a pleasure to appear before you to present the
GPO's budget request for fiscal year 2003. Public Printer
DiMario regrets that he is unable to be here today, but he has
submitted his official statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of the Public Printer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Mansker. With me today are Fran Buckley, Superintendent
of Documents; Andrew Sherman, the Director of Congressional and
Public Affairs; and Bruce Holstein, who is our Director of
Financial Management. We have Charlie Cook, who is the
Superintendent of Congressional Printing Management; and we
have Bill Guy, who is Director of the Budget Office. They will
join me today in any information that you might need.
With your permission, I will briefly summarize the Public
Printer's prepared statement, which has been submitted.
GPO's original request for fiscal year 2003 was for a total
of $129.3 million. This included $95.2 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, and $34.1
million for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation for the
Superintendent of Documents. At the direction of the Office of
Management and Budget, the request includes $6.9 million in
accordance with the Administration's proposal to charge
agencies for the full cost of post-retirement benefits for the
employees covered by these appropriations.
Since that time, we have submitted a request for a
supplemental for fiscal year 2002 for $7.9 million. This
includes $5.9 million to fund the shortfall in the fiscal year
2001 Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation. We are
also requesting $2 million in the supplemental for an asbestos
abatement project in our central office building.
If the supplemental is approved, our total requirements for
fiscal year 2002 will be reduced to $123.4 million. If the
supplemental is not approved, however, we will need the
shortfall funding restored to our fiscal year 2003 request.
For Congressional Printing and Binding, we are requesting
funding at levels sufficient to ensure that the costs of
Congress' printing and information product needs are fully
covered. The funding we are requesting for fiscal year 2003 is
at a full-cost recovery level. No shortfall is projected for
fiscal year 2002.
For the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, we are asking
for an increase to replace obsolete formats, servers and other
equipment, and for improvements to enhance on-line services
provided through GPO access. It is essential that we enhance
our data archiving capabilities, including data migration
activities to refresh essential legislative and regulatory on-
line files.
On-line formats are now the primary means of dissemination
in the Federal Depository Library program. We are continuing to
transition the publications distributed to depositories to
electronic formats as quickly as we can without jeopardizing
public access to titles for which there are no dependable
electronic equivalents.
Finally, we are seeking a legislative change to adjust the
statutory pay for the Public Printer and the Deputy Public
Printer. This will restore appropriate comparability with other
legislative branch agency heads, senior staff in the House and
the Senate, and senior staff in the executive branch. We make
this request in the interest of future GPO leaders, not
ourselves, because GPO may have new people coming in very
shortly.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, and I
will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
DETAILS TO CONGRESS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. You are requesting $2.3 million
for costs associated with staff being detailed to Congress.
This program has 38 FTE's associated with it, of which about
$1.6 million, or 68 percent, of this is in direct support of
the Senate.
What services do these individuals provide?
Mr. Mansker. Mr. Cook can give you that. He is in charge of
that service.
Charlie, do you want to come up?
Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, details to Congress provide
prepress assistance to the committees and support offices of
both the House and the Senate to prepare the documents that
they are responsible for printing, for both print and on-line
dissemination.
Mr. Taylor. I understand that all House committees
reimburse GPO from their committee funds for staff detailed
from GPO to House committees. Is that not true?
Mr. Cook. That is true.
Mr. Taylor. What about the Senate? They haven't gotten the
word?
Mr. Mansker. Mr. Chairman, each House has its own ability
to pay for these services in whichever way they care to do so.
We don't try to make any distinction between whichever way they
may choose. So the Senate does pay for theirs out of
Congressional Printing and Binding (CP&B). The House committees
pay for theirs basically out of House committee funds. However,
support offices in the House continue to pay for it out of
CP&B.
INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Taylor. You distribute government publications to
foreign governments that agree, as indicated by the Library of
Congress, to send to the United States similar publications of
their governments for delivery to the Library of Congress.
How does the GPO or the Library determine, in fact, who
will receive the exchanges?
Mr. Buckley. Under the International Exchange Program,
there are treaties with foreign governments, and agreements
between libraries in those countries in terms of exchanging
official publications of that foreign country with the Library
of Congress. The LOC administers this program. GPO only acts in
a ministerial fashion, shipping publications to those
libraries, as determined by the Library of Congress, and then
they send their publications back to the Library of Congress.
Mr. Taylor. In the last 5 years, has any government been
added or deleted from the exchange program?
Mr. Buckley. There have been individual libraries who have
been added or deleted within countries, as determined by the
LOC, but I don't believe there have been any countries that
have been added or deleted from this program.
Mr. Taylor. In light of September 11th, have you made any
changes to the participation, operation, security, or other
factors that may or may not have been in consideration prior to
September 11th?
Mr. Buckley. As required by the LOC, the materials that we
include in the program are public documents, it is a subset of
the public documents that GPO includes in the Depository
Library Program, so they are all publicly releasable materials.
The LOC does not require GPO to distribute classified,
administrative, or official materials, so nothing that has been
sent has been asked to be withdrawn.
The LOC has not required us to make any changes. The
agencies decide they are releasing a publication, and if they
release it, and LOC includes it in the programs, then GPO
proceeds with distribution.
Mr. Mansker. Mr. Chairman, our function is basically
distribution. All of the decisions on what is included in the
program are basically made through the agencies and through the
Library of Congress.
WORKERS COMPENSATION
Mr. Taylor. The committee understands that your auditors
advised you to increase your long-term liability for Worker's
Compensation from $35 million to $60 million; and further, we
understand your annual cost for Worker's Compensation is over
$5 million. This amount is 62 percent higher than the Architect
of the Capitol, whose cost is $3.1 million.
Can you tell us the number and types of injuries that your
employees have sustained that cost in excess of $5 million a
year?
Mr. Mansker. We have one of the few what I call ``red brick
building/blue collar agencies'' in the government, and we have
a workplace that white collar agencies would not have. We see
back injuries, predominately and other kinds of minor injuries
dealing with our production facility that you would not have in
a regular agency with white collar workers.
All those go together to make up a higher level of payments
than you would have in white collar agencies. But we fit right
in line basically with the Bureau of Engraving, the Mint and
agencies with missions similar to ours.
Mr. Taylor. The Architect of the Capitol has a minority of
white collar workers. They have a lot of maintenance workers
and those sort of trades workers that should get injuries the
same as the GPO but they have less cost for workmens
compensation.
Do you have a worker safety program?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir, we do have a worker safety program.
As a matter of fact, the GPO has a comprehensive safety and
health program that has been recognized by GAO as an
outstanding health program.
We have moved aggressively over the past 15 years to reduce
and eliminate, wherever possible, injuries that may occur
through things like manual lifting. We have been accomplishing
that through purchasing machines such as robotic lifts. That
has cut way down on our injuries. GPO has a much larger
workforce than AOC, which may account for the cost difference.
Mr. Taylor. Why is your auditing firm recommending such a
big jump in the long-term liability, and what is the basis for
that increase?
Mr. Mansker. That is under our Worker's Compensation
program, and they have audited our books for a number of years
now, 4 or 5 years; and since 1997 when we undertook to try and
figure out what exactly was the best figure for GPO, they have
confirmed our figures and confirmed our statistical analysis.
Then, this past year, they changed some of the assumptions that
have been made, so that is the reason for the rise.
It is not an out-of-pocket expense; it is just a
forecasting of liability that we have concurred in this year
with them. Next year we fully expect to find an outside
actuary, so there won't be any questions to arise as to whether
or not there is a continued increase. But we have had their
actuary, the auditing firm's actuary, confirm our figures and
have received a clean report every year.
INTEGRATED PROCESSING SYSTEM
Mr. Taylor. You have an information system project called
Integrated Processing System, IPS, that has been under
development for the past 5 years. The committee understands
that your auditors have recommended a write-off of $12 million
for this project.
What is the IPS system and why has it been in development
for 5 years? If, after 5 years, you are not in full production,
do you think maybe, you purchased the wrong system?
Mr. Mansker. I will let Mr. Buckley speak to that. He is
the superintendent that is operating the IPS.
Mr. Buckley. The Integrated Processing System is a software
application that is going to support our whole sales operation
from the order intake process, to inventory, to the production
of picking tickets. It will replace nearly 20 legacy systems
that operate independently to perform these functions
separately.
We originally bought off-the-shelf software for this
project. Unfortunately, a great deal of modifications have had
to be added to that to completely integrate those software
packages and to develop functionality that was not available
off-the-shelf, particularly to manage the whole process of
subscription ordering and handling the subscription items.
We have been in development for a considerable period of
time. We have been testing and evaluating the system, and in
fact, just recently had our Inspector General go through a
review of the system. He has determined that it is now fully
functional, and we are beginning operational activities.
The answer to your question of whether we purchased the
wrong system is: I don't think so. We procured what was
available at the time, and we have been enhancing that to
perform the functions that we need to have in support of the
sales operation.
Mr. Mansker. Mr. Chairman, I might add, while the system we
have and are implementing is a few years old at this point in
time, what it is replacing are very old systems. They have been
with us a long time at GPO and performed very well. But this
will allow us to save a great deal of money for the agency.
Mr. Taylor. I have several other questions, that I will
submit to be answered for the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Congressional Printing and Binding
Last year, the Committee provided $9.9 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation to cover the fiscal
year 2000 shortfall. In this budget request you are asking for $5.9
million to cover the estimated fiscal year 2001 shortfall. This is $4
million less than the fiscal year 2000.
Question. Were printing demands by Congress less during fiscal
2001?
Response. Yes, there was a reduction in Congressional printing
demands in 2001 from 2000.
Question. You say this is an estimate of the FY 2001 shortfall. Is
this still an ``estimate'' of the shortfall?
Response. This is referred to as an ``estimate'' because about 5%
of the work on 2001 obligations has not been completed. The
``estimate'' would actually cover only the 5% of the work on 2001
obligations that has not been completed; so, we are extremely close to
being fully accurate and complete in this request.
Question. Are we to expect further requests for this?
Response. No, any variance due to completing the remaining work
should be minimal and can be handled through normal budgetary
adjustments.
Question. You have requested a 13 percent increase in funding for
``Hearings'' and a 47 percent increase for ``Committee Prints''. We
understand this is based on historical data. Is there such a tremendous
difference from one session of the Congress to the next--or from one
Congress to the next--that justifies such an increase?
Response. The estimate for Hearings in 2003 is the average of 1999,
1997, and 1995 actual data, representing typical first sessions. There
does not appear to be a strong cyclical pattern by session of Congress
of hearings volume. The increase projected for 2003 is based on a
gradual return to more typical levels from the unusually low level
experienced in 2001. In the case of Committee Prints, there is a very
strong cyclical pattern in the volume of printing by session of
Congress. Over the past eight years, first sessions averaged 70% more
volume in this category than second sessions. The volume increases we
have projected for these and other categories of work are offset by
estimated decreases in other categories of work.
MANDATORY PAY INCREASES
Question. Under price level changes you are requesting a 4.5
percent increase for mandatory pay increases and cost recovery of
current services. What is the dollar breakdown between pay and cost
recovery?
Response. The increase requested in the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation for mandatory pay and related costs is
$3,360,000. The increase requested for price level increases is
$323,000.
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
Question.Under Cataloging and Indexing, you say ``It is necessary
to modernize the obsolete cataloging system that has been in use for
over 25 years.'' What plans, if any, do you have for achieving this?
Response. In order to continue the congressionally mandated
transition to more electronic Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP), the Library Programs Service (LPS) must in invest in systems
modernization. The legacy mainframe systems are obsolete, costly to
operate and maintain, and pose a significant vulnerability to Program
operations due to their reliance upon obsolete programming languages.
They also lead to duplication and inefficiencies in work processes,
provide only segmented and untimely exchange of data, and are extremely
costly to modify.
The online environment has also enlarged our user community beyond
the walls of the libraries in the FDLP and raised the service
expectations for delivery of electronic U.S. Government information
products. Public Law 103-40 requires LPS to provide access to online
resources, which involves the creation of new products and locator
services. Our current automated systems do not have the flexibility,
the accessibility, or the interoperability to deliver these products
and services.
The emergence of the electronic FDLP means that LPS now has a
distributed library collection of electronic resources to manage and
maintain. The Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection
(FDLP/EC) was established to fulfill the permanent public access
obligation mandated by 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1911 and Sec. 4101(a)(3) of the
GPO Access Act of 1993. The need to manage and maintain a collection of
online materials requires a new workflow that the current systems
cannot accommodate. In addition, LPS requires the cataloging
functionality of a commercial Integrated Library System to efficiently
and effectively carry out the Cataloging and Indexing requirements of
44 U.S.C. Sec. 1710-1711.
Question. You are requesting an increase of $348 thousand dollars
to replace legacy-automated systems for processing publications. What
are these legacy systems?
Response. GPO plans to replace four legacy mainframe applications
that have been in use from ten to twenty-five years. They are:
Congressional Serial Set Cataloging publishing system (CSSC)
Monthly Catalog Publishing System (MOCAT)
Depository Distribution Information System (DDIS)
Acquisitions, Classification, and Shipping Information System
(ACSIS)
Question. Are you planning to purchase off the shelf software?
Response. GPO plans to purchase a commercial, off-the-shelf
Integrated Library System (ILS) package, choosing one available on the
GSA schedule. ILS' are proven technology, used in libraries nationwide,
including nearly every Federal depository library.
Question. What will be the total cost of this replacement program?
Response. GPO has estimated a total expenditure not to exceed $1.9
million to purchase and implement an Integrated Library System.
Question. What savings or production increases will be realized?
Response. Within three years, the ILS will replace four legacy
mainframe systems, resulting in a projected saving of $369,821 over the
5-year depreciation life of the system.
TRANSIT SUBSIDY
You are requesting additional funding for ``commuting cost
subsidies''. In last year's bill, the Committee provided an allowance
up to $65 per month per employee who participates in the program.
Question. We assume the additional funding is requested to cover
the increase in the benefit from $65 to $100 per month. Have you
budgeted to provide the increased allowance?
Response. Yes, the current allowance is limited $65 per month and
GPO plans to adopt the same limit generally provided throughout the
Legislative Branch.
Question. How many of your employees participate in the program?
Response. Currently, GPO has 725 employees in the mass transit
subsidy program.
ON-LINE SERVICES
You have requested $2.6 million for equipment to enhance on-line
services and to replace obsolete formats, servers, and other equipment.
Question. Do you have a current base in your budget for this
equipment, if so, how much?
Response. The current base is $64,000.
Question. What are the objectives and the long-term plan and costs
of this enhancement program?
Response. The objectives are to replace the obsolete technology
used to provide online access, much of which is ten years old. We are
currently prevented from using many innovative configurations. It is
necessary to provide improved SGML/XML search capability. We need to
continue providing permanent public access to the older, less
frequently accessed databases that are in obsolete file structures.
Deployment of enhanced security features for dissemination files would
enable validation of the official status of publications. With
information technology changing rapidly, the long-term plan is to
replace and upgrade infrastructure to keep pace with the growing and
evolving demands on the system for effective and satisfactory public
access. The Web site provides access to more than 130,000 titles on GPO
servers and about 95,000 additional titles through links to other
Federal agency Web sites. GPO Access fulfills approximately 31 million
document retrievals per month. While expanding services could be
expected to require some increase in costs in the future, there has
generally been a partially offsetting decline in the unit cost for
information storage, processing and communications.
Question. Is it going to be five or more years before we realize
any savings or production gains?
Response. Service improvement gains should be rapid because the
technology is proven and will replace obsolete configurations. The
gains will benefit the public through improved access to governmental
information.
REVOLVING FUND OPERATIONS
The ``Sale of Government Publications Program'' operated on a self-
sustaining basis for many years. However, losses have developed largely
due to the provision of alternative online access to the public at no
charge. You are trying to reduce costs, enhance ordering operations,
and reduce the number of bookstores. You have made investments to
streamline operations, product development and marketing. In fact, on
March 29th you closed the Birmingham Bookstore due to significantly
reduced sales.
Question. Do you believe there will be further bookstore closings?
Response. Yes, we believe that it will be necessary to close
additional bookstores. In the past year, we closed 6 bookstores showing
the greatest losses to the program.
Question. Is the level of investment such that we will realize a
return on your investment or will we continue to see a further decline
in this operation?
Response. While sales revenue continues at a very meaningful level
of approximately $40 million per year, we continue to see reductions in
the volume of publications sold and increasing online access. The
program continues to provide important and necessary services to the
American public, providing a return on the government's investment in
creating publications and in their distribution.
PRINTING LOAD CONTRACTED OUT
Mr. Taylor. At this point I will yield to Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Taylor. What part of your
printing load is contracted out, and what part do you do in
house?
Mr. Mansker. About 72 percent, currently----
Mr. Moran. In house?
Mr. Mansker [continuing]. That is contracted out.
Mr. Moran. Seventy-two percent is contracted out.
Who are the principal people that do that?
Mr. Mansker. That is through a competitive bidding system,
nationwide. We put the specs out and anyone can bid on them who
wants to bid on them. But we have, of course, literally
thousands of printers that are available to print any number of
jobs. So it is farmed out or procured through the private
sector of the economy.
Mr. Moran. About how much then equals 72 percent?
Mr. Mansker. About $450 million worth of printing.
Mr. Moran. $450 million?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. And is it equally divided across the country?
Mr. Mansker. It is a low-bid process. We get the lowest
possible bids that we can for that printing for the government
dollar. We probably get a better cost on printing than anybody
could get in the country.
Mr. Moran. And the bid includes all of the costs--
transportation, getting the material to be printed through
them, postage, whatever it is?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. So it is from start to finish?
Mr. Mansker. Absolutely.
Mr. Moran. Are there any dominant printers that do this
work?
Mr. Mansker. We had a report out not long ago about who had
received the most printing. But the printing industry does a
report on that every year, and there are some--obviously there
are some big printers in the country that can do some of the
bigger jobs.
I have been given a list here: News Printing Company had
$24.8 million, Monarch Litho had $20.9 million, Fry
Communications, $15.9. The 10 largest I have here, if you would
like to have that, sir.
Mr. Moran. I would be interested in seeing that, because
they are really the ones who are performing this work then.
Mr. Mansker. The total of the 10 largest would be about
$130 million.
Mr. Moran. $130 million?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. Yes, I would like to see that, if you want to
pass it down.
Now, your employees are unionized, aren't they?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir, we have a number of unions in our
agency. We have a joint council of unions that represents most
of them, but we have some that are not represented by the joint
council.
Mr. Moran. If you would submit this for the record.
Mr. Mansker. Surely.
Mr. Moran. I would actually like to know where they are
located.
Mr. Mansker. We will do that, yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. That shouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Mansker. No, sir.
[The listing follows:]
TOP TEN CONTRACTORS OF COMMERCIALLY PROCURED PRINTING AND BINDING
SERVICES
[in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
News Printing Co........................... $24.8
Claysburg, PA.
Monarch Litho, Inc......................... 20.9
Montebello, CA.
Fry Communications, Inc.................... 15.9
Mechanicsburg, PA.
Braceland Brothers, Inc.................... 13.0
Atlanta, GA; Philadelphia, PA;
Steubenville, OH.
Commercial Data Center, Inc................ 12.8
Eaton, OH; Miamisburg, OH.
Von Hoffman Graphics, Inc.................. 11.4
Frederick, MD; Eldridge, IA.
McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc.............. 10.8
Temple Hills, MD.
Webco Printing Co.......................... 8.6
Omaha, NE.
Goodway Graphics of Va, Inc................ 6.5
Springfield, VA.
Gateway Press, Inc......................... 6.5
Louisville, KY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COST OF PRINTING
Mr. Moran. I would be interested in that.
So your employees are unionized. Now, is the work you do
competitive with the work that is contracted out, pricewise?
Mr. Mansker. You are talking about in-house printing?
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Mansker. The in-house printing is mainly the type of
printing for the House and for the Senate and for the agencies
that may have a schedule or security needs or direct
informational contacts that really we could not send out.
Mr. Moran. So all the normal printing gets sent out, gets
contracted out?
Mr. Mansker. I would say that is a good phrase to use, yes,
sir.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Well, I am curious, do you have an average hourly
compensation for your employees? I am just trying to figure out
what the comparable prices are and whether this was the reason.
Mr. Mansker. We can supply anything you need on that for
the record. I don't have those figures right here with me. I
would be glad to provide them for you.
Mr. Moran. I would be interested to see what your printers
are paid, and try to get some sense of what the other printers
are paid that do most of the work.
Mr. Mansker. Okay.
[The information follows:]
Highly skilled craftpersons in GPO are paid in a range
between $26 and $29 per hour, depending on the craft. Our wages
are generally comparable to wages paid in large metropolitan
areas for similar work. We do not gather information on the
wages paid by our commercial contractors. Commercial contracts
are awarded to the most competitive, competent, and capable
contractors.
Sale of Government Publications
Mr. Moran. Now, is the sale of government publications a
viable economic enterprise?
Mr. Mansker. The sales program has been having difficulty,
primarily because we have been charged with the responsibility
of putting some of our best sellers on-line, free to the
public.
Mr. Moran. Why?
Mr. Mansker. Congress has mandated it.
Mr. Moran. What are your best sellers? Legislative Branch
Appropriations hearings?
Mr. Mansker. No. Congressional Records.
Mr. Moran. Do you charge for these? I doubt it.
Mr. Mansker. The Federal Register, the Congressional
Record, Code of Federal Regulations. Those were tremendous
sellers, but they are on-line free now. Sales have continued to
go down year after year because we have added more and more of
these publications on-line, free. We do not charge for anything
that we have on-line.
We had Federal tax products, all kinds of things--Official
Gazette Patent Office, the Official Gazette Trademarks,
Commerce Business Daily. All these things brought in a lot of
revenue for the sales program previously that no longer bring
that much in.
Mr. Moran. Well, it is a subsidy for those who use them,
and most of the users are commercial. The Commerce Business
Daily, those are potential and actual contractors who use that
information. I don't know why we have to give it to them for
free.
Mr. Buckley. The on-line version is free. We still sell
many of those same items. The volume of sales has gone down.
Mr. Moran. Of course it has gone down.
Mr. Buckley. The free copies are given to libraries and the
public.
Mr. Moran. I can understand that. But for those
publications that are used for commercial purposes--and there
are a whole heck of a lot of outfits that simply take what they
get from the government for free, put a new wrapping on it and
sell it, aren't there?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buckley. Correct.
Mr. Moran. And, they are able to sell it because they
market it.
Mr. Buckley. Right.
Mr. Moran. So we are basically doing all the work, giving
the product of all that work to people for free, and then they,
since their costs are virtually nothing, they make all the
profit off of it.
Now, it would be feasible to have a Web site that you would
subscribe to, wouldn't it?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. And that would generate income to offset your
expenses, wouldn't it?
Mr. Mansker. Yes, sir, it would.
Mr. Buckley. For those companies that want to have the
electronic information and remarket that, we do charge them for
that service. If a company wants a data feed, for example, of
Federal Register information that they are going to manipulate
and sell, we charge them for that information.
Mr. Moran. But how do you know?
Mr. Buckley. If they want a special data feed, if they are
not just taking it from our public Web site.
Mr. Moran. Yes, but it is also on the public Web site. If
you just have one minimum wage person take it from the Web
site, right----
Mr. Buckley. All government information is not copyrighted.
Under separate legislation the government information is not
copyrighted, so it is reused by many people in many ways. Some
publishers are republishing it for business purposes; and
citizens and students and so forth are also reusing that
information.
Mr. Moran. You don't keep any track of who is just taking
Federal information and reselling it?
Mr. Buckley. No, we don't really have the ability to do
that.
Mr. Moran. No, I don't imagine.
Now, you are closing down your bookstores because they can
get it for free on-line?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. So why pay for it, I guess.
Mr. Buckley. The reduction in sales has made some of the
bookstores uneconomical to maintain.
Mr. Moran. I wonder if we could ask our staff director when
this was done and who let it? It wasn't this committee, was it?
Ms. Dawson. It was this committee.
Mr. Moran. It was this committee?
Was this your doing, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Taylor. I would like to think so, but I think it was
before I assumed the chairmanship.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, the legislation was enacted in
1993, Public Law 103-40. The committees that pushed it forward
were the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the
House Administration Committee. The law requires GPO to put
certain publications on-line, including the Congressional
Record and the Federal Register.
The original legislation gave GPO the option to charge for
this information. For a time, we did run a subscription service
to it. It was a failure. People would not buy it because people
expected their information from the Federal Government, when it
is on-line, to be free. In point of fact, we provide the same
kind of information that we make available online to the
Library of Congress, where it is put on the Thomas information
system, free of charge to the public.
One of the strongest outcries we got to charging for the
information was from the public interest community, which at
that point came in and said, citizens should have the right to
have free access to this information, just like the people who
are close to the legislative process.
So after a very poor experience with trying to sell
information, Public Printer DiMario in 1995 made a decision to
allow all of this information to be put on GPO Access, free of
charge. It has been a tremendous success. We have now 31
million downloads a month from our site. We have over 225,000
titles up.
The system has succeeded beyond anybody's expectations in
making information available to the public, but the consequence
is that we have been a victim of that success in the sale of
hard copy publications through the sales program, and that is
what has caused the retrenching actions we have been taking
over the last several months, including the closure of certain
bookstores.
Mr. Moran. The more successful it is, the more money you
lose, because the more effort it requires of you to provide
material for free.
Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. And the less economically viable are your
bookstores and other operations.
Mr. Sherman. That is correct.
Mr. Moran. I am glad to get that out on the table.
Early-out Authority
You have done a 3-year extension of the early buyout
authority. How successful is that?
Mr. Mansker. So far, Mr. Moran, we have not had to use the
buyout program. Within the sales program itself, however, we
may have to use that if we downsize the program substantially
to come into balance with our revenue. The sales program is
just losing enough money now that we are going to have to
consider doing that.
We haven't made a decision to do it, but we do have that
authority at hand, and it may have to be used.
Mr. Sherman. To add to that, Mr. Moran, since the authority
was originally provided, we have had 101 employees take the
early-out portion of that. It is not the buyout, but the early-
out. That saved the agency about $5 million.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
All right, Mr. Chairman.
Questions for the Record
Mr. Taylor. We appreciate your line of questioning, Mr.
Moran. I have some questions that have been submitted to be
answered for the record from Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Moran.
Mr. Mansker. I would be glad to answer any of them.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Questions for the Record From Representative Hoyer
Question. Since Sept. 11, how many requests have you had from
agencies to withdraw documents from depository libraries? Please
describe the circumstances. Do you have the discretion to refuse such
requests?
Response. We have had only one request since Sept. 11. In October
2001, the U.S. Geological Survey requested that the GPO instruct
Federal Depository Libraries that received a CD-ROM on characteristics
of large surface-water supplies in the United States to destroy their
copies. Shortly thereafter, the Superintendent of Documents ordered
those libraries participating in the Federal Depository Library Program
to withdraw this item and immediately destroy it. The legal authority
for determining whether documents should be withdrawn is with the
publishing agencies, not GPO.
Question. In the course of closing six bookstores to date, have you
encountered any negative public reaction in the affected communities?
Can the public in these communities still acquire government
publications easily, and if so, how?
Response. There has been minimal negative public reaction in
affected communities. The public can acquire publications by mail order
from catalogues, online ordering (http://bookstore.gpo.gov), and
telephone ordering (866 512-8000). Also, there are several local
depository libraries in every city in which we have closed bookstores.
Question. Please explain the accounting adjustment in your future
workers' compensation liability.
Response. The worker's compensation liability is simply an estimate
of the future cost of the program. After several years of accepting
GPO's calculations of its future liability, our external auditor
suggested changes in the actuarial analysis GPO was using to calculate
the liability. For example, a new category of claimants was added:
those not designated by DOL as either permanent or death claimants/
beneficiaries. Also, a new factor was applied to the estimate to
account for those injuries that are Incurred But Not Yet Reported
(IBNR). The estimated future liability is now projected for 54 years
for GPO as compared to 37 years used in precious estimates. The assumed
claimant retention rate was increased which means that the number of
employees removed from the database used for creating the estimates
would do so at a slower rate. The impact of increased cost of living
adjustments (COLAs) and medical inflation factors (CPIm) also
attributed to the increase. These changes in assumptions and the
increases in the inflation factors caused GPO's estimate of the long-
term liability to increase by $31.4 million from the prior fiscal year.
It should be noted that the ``estimate'' of liability, in itself,
causes no increase in expenditures--no impact on our cash position. The
actual charges to the program have remained fairly constant for the
past several years, and both GPO and our auditors are fully satisfied
with GPO's estimate.
Question. Do you have a formal worker-safety program? Have you
lately experienced an increase in the number of workers injured in your
facilities?
Response. Yes, GPO has a comprehensive safety and health program.
As stated in a GAO audit (GAO/HRD-93-1), ``As required by the act GPO
has a comprehensive safety and health program that provides protections
comparable to those required by OSHA standards and regulations. . . .
Significant features include a clearly stated policy on workplace
safety and health, employee involvement through joint labor-management
safety and health committees, comprehensive safety and industrial
hygiene surveys and inspections on a regular basis, a computerized
tracking system to follow through on corrective actions required as a
result of inspections, formalized accident investigations, a plan for
hazard abatement and control, and hazard awareness training for
employees and supervisors.''
We have experienced a slight increase in our lost time injury rate
in the last two years. However, the costs associated with injuries have
remained flat. Additionally, the majority of these injuries were minor
strain injuries. Given that our workforce is considerably older that
the rest of the Federal Government, GPO average 49.3 to Government-wide
average of 45, and the industrial nature of many of our operations,
this is not an unexpected outcome.
Question. Are your worker injury figures comparable to those of
other federal industrial facilities doing similar work, such as the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or the Mint? How do your figures
compare with those of the Architect of the Capitol, and how would you
explain any difference?
Response. GPO's lost time injury and illness rates are comparable
to those of BEP and the Mint. For the last four years that comparative
data is available, GPO has been lower than BEP three of the last four
years, and lower than the Mint one of the last four years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
According to data from the OSHA Website, GPO's total injury and
illness rates have been lower than those of the AOC each of the last
four years (FY 97 to FY 00). GPO's lost time injury and illness rates
were lower than AOC's for FY 97 and 98. AOC's lost time injury and
illness rates were lower than GPO's FY 99 and 00. Other than difference
in the type of work performed by the two agencies it is difficult to
explain differences in the injury and illness rates. GPO has
substantially more employees than AOC.
Question. What effect does the workers' compensation accounting
adjustment have on your cash position? Does this adjustment have any
effect on your need for appropriations?
Response. The workers compensation adjustment has zero effect on
GPO's cash position. The adjustment is merely an estimate of future
costs and is treated as an unfunded liability in GPO's accounting
reports. Also, there is no effect on GPO's request for appropriations.
GPO pays the Department of Labor annually for the actual cost of the
program. The actual annual cost, not the unfunded liability, is built
into GPO's rate structure.
Question. Does your write-off of the Integrated Processing System
have any effect on your cash position?
Response. The write-off has no effect on GPO's cash. The system was
paid for when it was purchased. Normally, the cost would be depreciated
over a five-year period after the system was placed into service, in
accordance with established GPO accounting procedures. However, since
the implementation period for the Integrated Processing System exceeded
the five-year period, the entire cost was written off in fiscal year
2001.
Questions for the Record From Representative Moran
PUBLIC PRINTER PAY RAISE LANGUAGE
Question. Why are you requesting a statutory change in order to
give the Public Printer a Pay Raise?
Response. We are requesting that the pay levels of the Public
Printer and the Deputy Public Printer be increased in order to restore
parity with other comparable Legislative Branch officials as well as
appropriate comparability with senior staff throughout the Government.
At present, the Public Printer is paid below the level for the Director
and Deputy Director, CBO, the Librarian of Congress and the most senior
staff on Capitol Hill and in the Executive Branch. Additionally, every
Member of Congress is able to pay staff members more than the Public
Printer or Deputy Public Printer are paid, and many do so.
Question. When was the current rate of pay established?
Response. November 5, 1990, pursuant to P.L. 101-520.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Question. What is being done with the $4 million that was provided
GPO for emergency preparedness this year?
Response. These funds are being used to protect Government
personnel and property and to ensure limited continuity of GPO
operations in the event of an emergency. GPO is replacing its current
fire protection, signaling, and public address systems. The present
systems, now more than 20 years old, are obsolete and provide
inadequate protection. Parts are no longer available for proper
maintenance and readiness and the current state of these systems poses
an unacceptable risk to GPO personnel and property in the event of
failure.
We are establishing a limited, remote printing capability to
support Congress in our Laurel, Maryland, paper and publications
storage warehouse. We are installing a digital roll-fed, on-demand
printing system that will be used in routine operations, while
providing a necessary alternative location in the event that our main
plant is unavailable for essential congressional work in support of the
legislative process.
We also plan to establish a remote mirror site for GPO Access,
GPO's Internet information site established pursuant to law. GPO Access
currently has no redundant capability outside of Washington, DC.
Establishment of a remote mirror site has been strongly recommended by
the Federal depository library community. Under non-emergency
conditions, the additional capability will support the primary GPO
Access site during peak workload periods and provide necessary backup
for critical information and communications capabilities.
Question. What assistance are you providing to the Capitol Police?
Response. We turned over the loading docks at our paper warehouse
on North Capitol Street for the Capitol Police to use in screening
deliveries to Capitol Hill, with up to 70 trucks a day passing through
this process. When anthrax forced the closure of House and Senate
office buildings, we also provided temporary space for personnel from
the Office of the Clerk of the House and the Senate's Office of
Legislative Counsel to continue their work.
Question. What is your view of the proposal to merge the GPO Police
with the Capitol Police?
Response. If benefits would result to the broader Legislative
Branch, we would certainly support such a merger. At the same time, we
would want whatever new structure emerges to have adequate flexibility
to effectively respond to specific GPO security concerns.
ALTERNATIVE OFF-SITE PRINTING FACILITY
Question. Why did you see a need to establish a second printing
facility?
Response. During the recent anthrax incidents, it became apparent
that some off-site capability is needed to help ensure continuity of
printing support for the Government. This is also a means to take
better advantage of existing facilities. When not being used in an
emergency back-up capacity, the equipment will be used for normal
production.
Question. What was the cost to establish the facility?
Response. The estimated cost is $1.9 million.
Question. Is the new facility able to handle any excess capacity
from your primary operation?
Response. Yes, the digital roll-fed, on-demand printing system at
the facility is needed for normal operations.
Question. Will your revenues grow because of increased capacity?
Response. There is expected to be a marginal increase, but this new
equipment will primarily replace older, less-efficient equipment
currently used in central office.
Question. Will you be able to do more of your work in-house because
of the new facility?
Response. This will provide the capability to handle greater peak
workloads.
Question. Did you consider contracting the alternate facility out
to a commercial printer?
Response. The primary purpose is to provide off-site back up to
produce core in-house printing support. The timing, specifications and
control requirements are not generally suitable to contracting. GPO
does have a printing procurement program that can also be used for
suitable emergency requirements.
CLOSING GPO BOOKSTORES
Question. What is driving the closing of bookstores?
Response. The driving force is the decline in orders and revenue,
which is primarily caused by free online access and, to a lesser
extent, from duplication with NTIS and other publishers for the sale of
certain best-selling publications.
Question. How many bookstores were there at the peak of their
operations?
Response. There were 24 bookstores at the peak.
Question. How many bookstores have been closed since this peak?
Response. We have closed 6 bookstores.
Question. Are other bookstores under consideration for closure?
Response. Yes, as orders continue to decline, other bookstores will
be considered for closure.
Question. What is the process for determining when a bookstore
should be closed?
Response. Many factors are considered, including the cost of
operating each bookstore, the impact on customers and employees.
Affected parties are consulted and steps are taken to minimize any
negative impacts.
CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING SHORTFALL
Question. What changes in workload levels are you projecting for
2003?
Response. Based on historical trends for first sessions of
Congress, certain categories of work decrease and others increase. The
categories expected to decline are: the Congressional Record, Bills,
Business and Committee calendars, Document envelopes and franks. These
reductions are largely offset by increases in hearings and committee
prints.
Question. How much is the Congressional Printing and Binding
shortfall?
Response. The shortfall is $5,875,000 for fiscal year 2001 orders.
Question. Could you explain how this shortfall arose?
Response. The shortfall arose because GPO is required by law to
print publications ordered by Congress. In fiscal year 2001, the amount
of printing ordered by Congress exceeded the amount appropriated.
Question. How has it been addressed in past funding bills?
Response. Since 1958, the appropriations bills have allowed
shortfalls in Congressional Printing and Binding to be charged against
subsequent-year appropriations, in order to avoid the need for
deficiency appropriations. The Comptroller General (B-123964)
recommended this procedure. Funding for shortfalls has been provided
through supplementals, transfers or regular appropriations.
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Question. Does GPO maintain its own buildings on North Capitol
Street or does the Architect of the Capitol provide these services?
Response. The Architect of the Capitol does not maintain GPO
buildings. GPO provides its own building maintenance and repair
services, including engineering support.
Question. Last year, we provided $6 million to replace air
conditioning equipment and for energy efficient lighting. What is the
status of this project?
Response. We have awarded a contract for the much needed
replacement of GPO's air conditioning system. The work schedule calls
for the system to be installed and operational by the end of March
2003. Work on the lighting improvements will follow.
Question. Is there a potential health and safety problem at GPO
related to asbestos?
Response. Yes, we have discovered friable asbestos insulation in
our main buildings. We plan to take abatement action in order to comply
with safety standards. GPO has requested a $2 million supplemental for
this work.
ELECTRONIC DATA
Question. How much of the material you print has been
electronically stored and available to Congress and the public by
electronic means? What are your predictions on future trends? Will we
foresee a day when no material is printed?
Response. With a few exceptions, the material we print for Congress
is available online through GPO Access and other sources. Hearings,
unless specially requested by the Committee, and certain committee
prints intended for working use by Committees are not available to the
public by electronic means. Paper copies are used in different ways and
indications are that demand for paper copies will continue.
Question. What are the challenges you face in providing public
access to Government information in electronic formats?
Response. We face the following challenges:
1. Discovery of publications on the Web.
In the Web era, we lack the automatic and largely transparent
system of adding riders to print orders that provides copies of printed
publications to be distributed. GPO is developing systems and practices
that enable us to effectively find publications that agencies are
making available on the Web, and to efficiently gather the information
about those publications that we need to drive our archiving and
cataloging functions.
2. Assuring ongoing integrity of content:
In the print world, a user is assured that a publication from a
Government agency, printed through GPO, had passed various approvals
and is a fixed, official document. In the Web environment, publications
are not consistently reviewed and are not fixed in time by the printing
process. Yet users still need and expect the information to be
official. GPO must build mechanisms that assure that trust, both for
the publications we point to on agency servers, and the publications
that we archive.
3. Assuring ongoing access to content:
GPO's current strategy for assuring access and integrity is to
point to publications on the originating agency server for as long as
possible, and to capture and maintain a working archival copy, to be
invoked only at the point that the publication is no longer available
from the originating site. In order for this strategy to be successful,
we are adapting our cataloging practices to respond to the changing
demands of this less stable environment, and are developing systems and
processes for preserving data and reliably and consistently making it
available to the user.
4. Enhancing and extending the service role of depository
libraries:
The depository librarian is the link between Government
information, technology, and users at all levels of skill, knowledge,
and proficiency. More than ever, users need assistance in making sense
of the mass of Government information, and not all users are equally
enfranchised in terms of technological savvy and understanding of the
Government. This traditional role for depository librarians must be
expanded and emphasized.
Question. Is the Federal Depository Library Program currently a
predominately electronic service?
Response. Yes, online information became the predominant form of
dissemination in the Federal Depository Library Program in fiscal year
2000. The transition to a more electronic program is continuing, as
directed by Congress. Nearly 61% of the 37,600 new titles made
available in FY 2001 and FY 2002 to date were disseminated
electronically. Through its electronic information dissemination
component, the program now delivers more content to users than ever
before.
Question. How are you planning to modernize the cataloging and
indexing of Government Publications, including those born digital?
Response. Funding was provided, beginning this fiscal year, for an
Integrated Library System. The need to catalog, provide access to, and
manage online materials requires capabilities that the current
patchwork of legacy systems cannot provide. GPO is in the process of
acquiring an up-to-date cataloging and library data management system,
known as an Integrated Library Systems (ILS). ILS' are proven
technology, and are used in libraries of all types throughout the
country, including nearly all depository libraries.
Currently, the Cataloging and Indexing Program is operated using a
patchwork of legacy mainframe systems, stand-alone desktop applications
and Web-based service applications that do not share data and do not
talk to each other. This causes duplication and inefficiencies in work
processes because data can only be exchanged in segmented portions and
often in an untimely fashion. These systems are also costly to maintain
and modify.
GPO management favors purchasing Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
cataloging and library data management software from the GSA Schedule,
provided it meets our system requirements. With an ILS, GPO will be
able to perform the statutorily authorized functions of the Cataloging
and Indexing Program and the Federal Depository Library Program more
efficiently and accurately. Integrated Library Systems typically
include modules for public catalogs, acquisitions, serials control,
interlibrary loan, circulation, etc.
STAFFING
Question. How much has GPO employment declined since 1990?
Response. Since 1990, GPO employment has declined by over 2,000
employees.
Question. How has this reduction been accomplished?
Response. This has been accomplished primarily through attrition.
We have also made use of separation incentives and early out
authorities during that period. The use of improved technology,
particularly information technology, in GPO operations has enabled this
reduction. We have also consolidated operations by reducing the number
of locations.
Question. What employment level changes are you requesting for
2003?
Response. We are requesting an overall reduction of 38 FTE's in the
ceiling for GPO in 2003. We are requesting an increase of 3 FTE's in
the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation to deal with cataloging and
providing public access to the increasing volume of Government
publications in electronic format.
Question. Last year, the committee provided GPO with a three-year
extension of the early-out and buy-out authority. What has been your
experience?
Response. A total of 101 employees have taken the early retirement
since this authority was provided in 1999, including three so far this
fiscal year, since it was extended. The savings achieved is estimated
at about $5 million per year. To date, we have not exercised the
current separation incentive authority. It is important that we have
this management tool available to deal effectively with the rapid
changes impacting certain GPO operations, particularly the Sales
Program. Should these trends continue, it might become necessary to
implement this authority in a targeted manner.
Question. Has GPO recently concluded negotiated wage agreements
with major employee unions?
Response. Yes, GPO has successfully concluded three wage agreements
covering the majority of GPO employee unions, including AFGE-PCJC, GPO
Police and the Joint Bargaining Committee, which represents eight craft
unions. The Joint Committee on Printing has ratified these agreements.
We are currently negotiating with three remaining unions representing
machinists, electricians, and typographical workers.
SALES PROGRAM
Question. What is your plan to address losses in the Sales Program?
Response. The losses in the Sales Program are primarily caused by
our own success in providing free online access to government
information. While this has been an enormous benefit to the public, it
has resulted in a reduced volume of paper sales and an under-recovery
of cost in the Sales Program. Since we do not expect this trend to
reverse, our strategy is to adjust the size and cost of operations to
match the reduced volume of orders. Our budget reflects a reduction of
60 FTE's in the Sales Program over the next two years and the closure
of additional bookstores. If the trend of declining sales continues, we
will have to accelerate this process and consider alternative funding
options.
Question. Is there duplication between GPO and NTIS in selling the
same publications?
Response. Yes, there is some duplication regarding certain major
sellers and regulatory materials, notably IRS publications. GPO and
NTIS perform similar sales functions.
Question. How was the Sales Program financed prior to 1978?
Response. Prior to 1978, GPO was appropriated annual amounts for
administrative costs to operate the General Sales Program, as part of
the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents. In addition, GPO was allowed to retain customer receipts to
offset printing and postage costs, and any excess receipts were
returned to Treasury.
Question. Does the Sales Program provided an important and
necessary public service?
Response. Yes, through the Sales Program, an information-seeking
American public is able to buy copies of many government publications,
which they would not otherwise be able to purchase. This allows the
public to obtain government publications for personal use and for use
in libraries, businesses and non-profit organizations.
Question. Is the sale of government publications a commercially
viable enterprise?
Response. There is little commercial interest in selling the
majority of government publications because the volume of sales for
many titles is very low and the profit margins are below industry
expectations. Some historically significant publications, such as the
Constitution, are kept indefinitely. Titles are carried to meet
specific needs of a program.
GPO CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. Thank you
very much. We will take a brief recess while the General
Accounting Office is coming into the hearing room.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WITNESSES
DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
GENE L. DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF MISSION SUPPORT OFFICER
RICHARD L. BROWN, DEPUTY CHIEF MISSION SUPPORT OFFICER AND CONTROLLER
COMMENDATION FOR SUPPORT TO CONGRESS
Mr. Taylor. The subcommittee will come back to order. The
final agency that we will hear from today is the General
Accounting Office. We have with us the Comptroller General,
David M. Walker. Greetings, sir. You have several staff with
you. We are pleased to have them with us today.
Before we proceed with our line of questioning, I would
like to take a moment to thank you and the entire staff of the
GAO for the highly efficient and professional manner in which
the GAO responded to our needs for temporary office space and
facilities this past year. Your organization is to be commended
on the fine job that you did to assure the continued operations
of the House of Representatives. On behalf of all of my
colleagues in the House, I would like to thank you and ask that
you pass that word on to the entire staff of your organization.
I would like to commend you for your efficient and
courageous handling of the GAO organization since you came
aboard. I am very pleased with that.
Mr. Moran, do you have any statement that you would like to
make before we go into questions?
Mr. Moran. Actually, I agree with your comments. I think
Mr. Walker and his organization have shown courage and
integrity, and they are to be applauded for their courage and
integrity. It is a very professional operation. I appreciate
its being so.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Walker, would you like to introduce your
staff?
Opening Remarks
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moran. I think
both you and I have a little touch of a cold or something.
Hopefully, we will both get over it quickly.
To my left, Mr. Chairman, is Gene L. Dodaro, our Chief
Operating Officer; to my immediate right is Sallyanne Harper,
our Chief Mission Support Officer; and to her right is Dick
Brown, her deputy and our Controller, as well.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, I will hit a couple of highlights
and then go to Q&A. I will be brief. We are going to provide
each of you a copy of our performance and accountability
report. I would commend it to you when you have a little extra
time.
We believe it is important that the GAO lead by example in
all ways. Even though we are not covered by the Government
Performance and Results Act, the CFO Act, and others, we have
voluntarily complied in order to lead by example; and I think
you will find that of interest.
With regard to last year, we believe we had an excellent
year, $26.4 billion in financial benefits to the Congress and
the Nation. That is a return on investment of $69 for every $1
invested in GAO, number one in the world. In nonfinancial
benefits, we contributed a number of ways, including election
reform, and homeland security, just to mention a couple.
With regard to our budget request for this next year, as
you know, basically we are asking for our mandatories, which
are about 5.1 percent. The only exception to that is, we are
asking for $4 million for certain safety and security issues to
make sure that we are up to Category 2 security standards for
our building, as well as, quite frankly, to benefit from some
of the lessons learned by having hosted you and your colleagues
in our building. We also want to make sure we are prepared as a
contingency facility to the extent that anything might happen
so that we would be able to host you again.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased and honored to head the
GAO. We have about 3,200 top-quality professionals. I think we
are making a difference for the Congress and the country, and
we are going to try to continue to be as good or better than
anybody out there.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection, your complete statement will
be entered into the record.
[The statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESULTS OF EXIT INTERVIEW SURVEYS
Mr. Taylor. As part of your ongoing human capital
improvement program, you have implemented an exit interview
survey to solicit views from departing employees. I think that
is commendable.
I would like to ask what you have learned from those
surveys and how many changes have been implemented, or new
programs that have been implemented, based on what you have
found out in those surveys.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, the exit survey is just one way
that we try to obtain feedback from current and former
employees at GAO. With regard to the exit survey, in general,
the results have been that employees have found that GAO is a
very good place to work. They view their positions as giving
them a significant challenge that allows them to make a
difference for the Congress and the country.
Some of the areas that they felt we could improve further
were in trying to continue to streamline and simplify our
processes, looking for additional advancement opportunities for
people within the organization, and continuing to provide
alternative product lines and services to the Congress. We have
and are taking steps in each of these areas.
But I think it is important to note that we don't want to
just rely on getting feedback from people when they are leaving
the organization. It is important to have mechanisms in place
in order to get feedback from individuals when they are first
coming in and throughout their tenure in the organization. We
have a number of mechanisms to do that, such as employee
feedback surveys, periodic focus group meetings, as well as our
employee suggestion program.
Furthermore, we have formed an Employee Advisory Council,
which is a representative group of GAO employees whom the
executive committee meets with every quarter. They put together
the agenda, and we talk about issues of mutual interest and
concern. That has resulted in a tremendous number of
improvements and an acceleration of the cultural transformation
that we need to achieve at GAO.
BASING COMPENSATION ON PERFORMANCE
Mr. Taylor. Another program that you have spoken about is
linking performance and compensation to results. You state that
the majority of the GAO's annual compensation increases are
automatic, as required by law. However, you plan to review your
pay systems to identify ways to increase the percentage of
compensation tied directly to performance contributions and
results.
Two questions: If the majority of your increases are
automatic, how are you able to tie the increases to performance
and results?
Secondly, will you need any legislative changes to enable
you to accomplish your goal?
Mr. Walker. First, Mr. Chairman, I think there is
additional progress that we can make within the constraints of
existing law. In fact, we are taking a number of steps to do
that. We have designed and implemented a new performance
appraisal system for the vast majority of our employees. That
system, which is directly linked to our strategic plan and core
values, is focused on desired outcomes. It evaluates people not
only on their contributions, but also on the key competencies
we think are necessary for them to be able to perform well and
be successful at the agency.
We are increasing the amount of dollars that we allocate to
incentive compensation, not just with regard to individual
performance, but team performance as well. We are in the
process of relooking at our banded compensation system, which
provides additional compensation both as it relates to
assignments as well as overall performance. I expect we are
going to make some further adjustments in order to make our
compensation systems even further results-oriented.
I will say one thing that we may ultimately come back to
the Congress at some point in time. Under current law, we are
required annually to give cost-of-living increases and locality
pay adjustments to every single person in the agency unless
they are performing unsatisfactorily.
Obviously, the objective is not to have anybody performing
unsatisfactorily, and therefore that means an overwhelming
majority of our employees automatically get a cost-of-living
increase, as well as locality pay.
We would like to try to be able to figure out whether or
not it could be restructured in some manner. That might require
a legislative change. But we would want to look at that in the
context of a broader set of reforms before we would come back
to the Congress.
Mr. Taylor. I have some questions that I will submit to be
answered for the record at this time.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Performance-Based Reward and Recognition Program
Question. You are requesting a 4-percent increase for your
performance-based reward and recognition program. This increase will
give you a base level of $2.7 million.
(1) Are all employees eligible for rewards under this program?
(2) Can you give us some examples of prior accomplishments that
employees have made for which they were rewarded?
Response. Yes, all GAO staff that meet the eligibility requirements
may be nominated for an award by both managers and peers. GAO's awards
program recognizes individuals and teams for noteworthy achievements
reflecting GAO's mission, strategic goals and core values. GAO's awards
program has four major components: GAO inside honor awards that are
presented by the Comptroller General annually to honor outstanding
achievements; unit awards that are presented annually and throughout
the year by unit directors to reward outstanding performance and
contributions; suggestion awards that are presented by the Comptroller
General to recognize noteworthy suggestions for improvement; and career
service awards which are granted upon completion of 10 years of federal
service, and for each 5th year thereafter.
GAO's awards program includes recognition for human capital
management, distinguished service, meritorious service, team
achievement, client service, customer service, equal opportunity, and
community service. A few examples of accomplishments for which
employees were rewarded include:
For outstanding relationships with and outreach to key
congressional committees in successfully facilitating GAO's
appropriations and legislative initiatives;
For exceptional leadership, vision, and performance in
guiding GAO's highly sensitive and critical work on military readiness
and threats to national and global security forming the basis for
future anti-terrorism efforts;
For developing a comprehensive, trend-setting IT
investment assessment framework being used government-wide and by
industry as the benchmark for IT capital planning assessments;
For calling attention to, and recommending solutions for,
the year 2000 computing glitch, helping to ensure that critical systems
supporting the delivery of vital public services continued to function
at the turn of the century;
For developing commercial best practices for acquiring
weapons systems, thereby improving the capacity for GAO's weapons
reviews and strengthening DOD's acquisition processes;
For helping to facilitate government-wide management and
institutional reforms needed to build as well as sustain high-
performing organizations and more effective government;
For managing GAO's efforts to improve both performance and
accountability in the federal government through identifying major
challenges for management and program risks as well as assisting the
Congress during the presidential transition;
For leading GAO's analysis of HUD's budget, resulting in
billions of dollars in accomplishments and significant management and
program improvements;
For significant improvements in the way the food industry
operates and federal agencies oversee the safety of meat, poultry, and
seafood; and
For outstanding collaborative efforts to perform a
complex, multi-team review of the status of the nation's election
systems, which has helped focus the debate on federal election reforms.
Recruitment, Retention and Recognition Benefits
Question. One million two hundred fifty nine thousand dollars
($1,259,000) is required to maintain and expand your current
recruitment, retention and recognition benefits program.
(1) What are the individual components of this program?
(2) How do they compare with similar programs within the executive
branch and other agencies within the legislative branch?
(3) How do you measure that these programs help to attract and
retain high-caliber staff.
Response. The components of the benefits portfolio that we offer to
enhance the attractiveness of GAO as an employer of choice includes an
onsite day care center, fitness center, health unit, development and
career transition assistance, recognition awards, diverse training
opportunities, frequent flyer benefits, recruitment and retention
bonuses, student loan repayments, and transit subsidy benefits. Our FY
2003 budget requests funds to increase the student loan repayment,
transit subsidy, and training components of our benefits portfolio.
At the present time, the federal government is only beginning to
recognize the potential of many of the available recruitment and
retention tools. Student loan repayment programs are a new development
in the federal service--only a few agencies have made repayments to
date--but many agencies are developing programs to meet their
particular needs. GAO's student loan program is similar to those being
developed by other legislative branch entities and will operate within
the bounds and criteria developed and recommended by the Legislative
Branch Financial Managers Council.
Our transit subsidy benefit is comparable to the benefit that
executive branch agencies are required to provide their staff. In the
area of training, world-class professional service organizations
similar to GAO's multi-disciplinary workforce typically invest nearly 6
percent of their budgets in training for staff. In fiscal year 2002 and
2003, GAO's total annual investment in training its staff is about 4
percent.
We assess the impact of GAO's employee benefits program, work
environment, and business processes through a number of measures. We
closely track attrition and periodically conduct an agency-wide
employee survey to obtain staff feedback. We also survey new staff and
departing staff to provide insight into the reasons for joining or
departing GAO to determine whether salary, benefits, job
characteristics or other factors impacted staff decisions. In addition,
the Comptroller General meets periodically with GAO's Employee Advisory
Council and other interest groups to obtain input and seek feedback on
a variety of issues of mutual concern, conducts agency-wide telecasts
at least quarterly, provides opportunity for agency-wide input on
significant changes to agency policy, and provides other forums to
foster staff involvement and empowerment. Collectively, through these
means we obtain feedback on programs of interest to staff that affect
the quality of life and our ability to attract and retain staff.
EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENTS
Mr. Taylor. Last year the committee provided $410,000 to
fund the Education Loan Repayment program. This year you are
requesting an increase of $810,000 to meet the current program
commitments. Could you tell us a little bit about this?
I am getting very concerned regarding the whole area when
Federal employees, have locality pay, have salaries, we have a
substantial benefit package, have transit subsidy
contributions; and now we start an education loan repayment
program, and then other things come along. It gets kind of hard
to compare what we are paying employees here compared with what
is common around the rest of the country, since most companies
do not provide these benefits.
Can you tell us what are your current program commitments,
how many employees receive the benefits, and what is the
average amount provided to each participant?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we have recently issued a
proposed order to implement this new authority. Basically the
way that it works is that we are first identifying critical
occupations where we are having difficulty attracting an
adequate number of qualified employees. We are targeting
assistance first and foremost to those areas.
For example, we are having difficulty in attracting an
adequate number of Ph.D. economists, also entry-level
attorneys. There are tremendous supply-and-demand imbalances in
the marketplace in connection with these areas.
You are correct that you really need to look at a total
compensation approach. But even if you look at a total
compensation approach for people with those types of skills, as
compared to what we offer, there is an imbalance.
So, as a result, what we found is that student loan
repayments can be helpful. A lot of times people that go into
public service are going to make less money than they otherwise
would in the private sector. That differential could be
compounded with the fact they have significant debt that they
have accumulated in order to obtain advanced degrees, and that
might, therefore, preclude them from going into the government.
Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the professional employees that
we hired in FY 2001 had either a Masters or Ph.D. degree. So we
have a very highly educated workforce.
With regard to this year's program, we anticipate that
there will be probably less than 20 people that will be in our
targeted employment areas. We also want to use student loan
repayment for retention purposes. We want to be able to provide
some loan repayment relief to those individuals who are strong
performers and who are in their first 3 years of experience at
GAO, because our history has shown that if we can keep people
for at least 3 years, we have a very good chance of keeping
them long term. The turnover that we have after years 1 and 2
is much higher than it is after they stay 3 years.
So we are targeting our assistance to those critical
occupations to try to enhance retention for people that have
from 1 to 3 years of experience, primarily.
Mr. Taylor. Unfortunately, these types of actions become
commonplace, and while you have a highly educated workforce
that you are trying to retain and attract, you pass it across
to a variety of other agencies, and all that disappears; and in
fact, there may not be any trouble finding employees in many of
those areas. I have several questions that I will submit at
this point to be answered for the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Transit Subsidy Benefit
Question. You are requesting an increase of $335,000 for your
transit subsidy program in order to increase the monthly allowance from
$65 a month to $100 a month. The committee understands that increase
was effective January 1, 2002.
(1) Did you increase the allowance to your employees at that time
or are they being held at the $65 level?
(2) How many employees participate in the program?
(3) You state that you want to extend the program to new hires. Is
there a reason why they have been excluded prior to this?
Response. Yes, in January 2002, we increased the monthly benefit
from $65 to $100 to provide GAO staff benefits similar to those
existing in the executive branch. This benefit will enable GAO to be
competitive with the executive branch for the same pool of highly
qualified job applicants.
As of March 2002, GAO had over 1,400 participants in its Transit
Subsidy Program. We have never excluded new hires from participating in
the program, but rather we offer the benefit to new hires as they are
brought on board. Our fiscal year 2003 budget requests an increase of
$335,000 to cover fiscal year 2003 hires, as well as fund the
annualized cost of the January 2002 rate increase.
LEAVE PAYMENTS
Question. You have a current base of $2.2 million for leave
payments. You have requested an increase of $1.5 million, which brings
your base to $3.7 million. It is assumed that from the time a person
leaves your organization until a replacement is selected a certain
amount of time should elapse.
That being the case shouldn't there be a time period that you are
not paying salaries or benefits and therefore should accumulate some
savings that would be used to make these leave payments?
Response. No, there are no savings available to cover estimated
leave payments. The savings from estimated staff attrition has already
been offset against the cost of planned hires, promotions and merit
increases for staff.
Our fiscal year 2003 request for funding terminal leave payments
anticipates an increase in the number of staff retirements than had
been previously experienced. For example, in fiscal year 1999, 71 staff
retired. In fiscal year 2001, staff retirements had almost doubled,
reaching 130. In the first half of fiscal year 2002, we already have
had 130 staff retire, including 52 staff that exercised the option to
retire under our recent early-out program. By the end of fiscal year
2003, we estimate almost 20 percent of our current staff and executives
will be eligible to retire.
ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Question. We touched on this area last year and I said at that time
that I've been on this committee since 1993, and the asbestos abatement
program has been an issue the entire time. Again this year you speak to
the fact that your plans are to complete this program during the
current fiscal year.
(1) What is the projected completion date for the project?
(2) What is the projected completion date of the final phase of the
construction of office space in the GAO Building?
Response. We plan to complete the final phase of asbestos removal
and construction of office space in the GAO building in the spring of
2003. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request does not contain any funds
for the asbestos removal project. Asbestos has already been removed
from all office space, except the sixth floor, which is largely
complete.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES
Question. There is a price level increase of $789,000 for operation
and maintenance of facilities.
(1) Does this cost only cover the main GAO building?
(2) In addition to rental payments are there any operation and
maintenance costs associated with your 11 sub-offices?
(3) By sub-office what are your annual rental payments?
Response. Yes, this $789,000 covers utility services and operation
and maintenance costs only for the GAO headquarters building. In
addition to the rental payments, there are minimal costs for operations
and maintenance costs for some field offices that are not included in
the rental payment, such as security maintenance and monitoring,
preventive maintenance, and miscellaneous services.
Our fiscal year 2003 estimates for rent payments by field
location are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003
Location Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta...................................................... $883,396
Boston....................................................... 892,278
Chicago...................................................... 766,895
Dallas....................................................... 876,197
Denver....................................................... 457,123
Huntsville................................................... 117,349
Los Angeles.................................................. 651,902
Norfolk...................................................... 511,485
San Francisco................................................ 706,430
Seattle...................................................... 702,478
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not pay rent for our Dayton field office located at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base. However, we pay a nominal amount for
operations and maintenance services.
QUARTERS, COST-OF-LIVING AND EDUCATION ALLOWANCES
Question. You have requested funds to cover quarters, cost-of-
living and education allowances. These types of payments are usually
paid to employees stationed outside the United States. I understand
that these payments are being paid to employees that you have detailed
to NATO.
(1) If these employees are detailed I assume you are being
reimbursed for all costs associated with those details?
(2) If that is the case, why are you requesting funding for a non-
cost item?
Response. We only have one employee currently on assignment to
NATO. Annually, we budget for the anticipated cost of compensation and
benefits allowances for staff on detail to NATO. Since we do not
receive reimbusements in advance of actual expenditures, appropriated
funds are earmarked for this purpose. As we bill the Department of
State for actual costs, the reimbursement is used to offset our total
compensation and benefits costs.
SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
Question. You are requesting $4 million dollars to implement
critical security and safety enhancements. We touched on this area
during last year's hearing but since September 11th security has become
a major initiative throughout the country.
(1) Has GAO prepared a comprehensive security and safety
assessment?
(2) If so, what were the major findings?
(3) What are the total projected costs for your needed security and
safety enhancements?
Response. Yes, GAO has prepared a comprehensive security and safety
assessment. The safety and security of GAO's staff, guests,
information, and assets are a top priority for GAO. In the aftermath of
the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax incidents, we
designated safety and security as a key management challenge. As a
result, we hired a contractor who conducted a comprehensive assessment
and evaluation of our security, including potential physical, nuclear,
biological, chemical, and radiological threats. The contractor made a
number of recommendations to enhance building access control, perimeter
security, personnel security, and physical security. We have assessed
the contractor's recommendations and are refining our implementation
plan to further strengthen security and safety within GAO. We would be
pleased to brief the Committee on the contractor's specific findings
and recommendations.
We currently are implementing initiatives to screen mail offsite;
upgrade air handling systems to protect against chemical and biological
intrusions; and upgrade building access control, emergency
notification, and intrusion detection systems. We are also assessing
security needs at our field offices. We currently estimate the total
cost of identified security and safety enhancements in fiscal years
2002 and 2003 at $10.3 million. However, we have not completed our
emergency preparedness planning activities with other legislative
branch entities.
PRESIDENT'S RETIREMENT COSTS INITIATIVE
Mr. Taylor. One last question: The President proposed a
government-wide initiative to transfer accountability for
accruing retirement benefits and post-retirement health benefit
costs from OPM to individual agencies. The cost to the
Legislative Branch agencies this fiscal year, excluding the
Senate, is $112 million.
Do you have any observations or recommendations for this
proposal?
Mr. Walker. Well, Mr. Chairman, from the standpoint of
economics and accounting, it clearly has conceptual merit to do
that. I understand the administration is saying their intent is
not to reallocate resources and not to change its bottom line.
As you know, only the Congress can allocate resources in the
first instance.
I have said in my capacity as chairman of the Joint
Financial Management Improvement Program that this program has
conceptual merit. But obviously how you go about implementing
it makes a big difference as to what the real impact is going
to be, if you do decide to implement it.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. We will open for the other members.
Mr. Moran.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Taylor. In last year's
legislative branch report, we gave GAO the responsibility for
developing a technology assessment capability as a pilot
project. I would like to just get a little short status report
of where we are on that.
Mr. Walker. You are correct, Mr. Moran. In fact, in last
year's legislation there was a $500,000 allocation for a pilot
program. We have under way, right now, one such project that we
are undertaking in partnership with the National Academy of
Sciences. The subject matter involved is the use of biometric
technologies to control the U.S. borders. We believe it is a
timely topic given some recent events.
We are considering the possibility of additional projects,
as well. But as you know, with the finite amount of dollars and
the limited amount of time, there is only so much one can do.
Mr. Moran. Could you ever do more than one or two reports a
year with the money that is made available? Do you think that
GAO is the right location for this?
Mr. Walker. First, Mr. Moran, I would respectfully suggest
that this is something that is worthwhile, and that we have a
lot of knowledge and expertise within GAO that can help to
accomplish this objective. Given that fact, I don't know that
it makes a whole lot of sense to create a new governmental
entity to do something that can be done either by GAO, or
probably more likely, as in the case with this project, in
partnership between GAO and maybe the National Academy of
Sciences and other parties on the outside.
How many projects we can do in a particular year obviously
depends upon not only how much the resources are, but also the
nature of the projects, how labor-intensive they are and how
much expertise we have to buy from the outside that we may not
end up having on the inside.
TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT
Mr. Moran. The Truth in Regulating Act, do you think that
you are the appropriate place to develop that kind of
expertise? Did you ask for any money to implement the Truth in
Regulating Act?
Mr. Walker. It was never funded. We did request, as I
recall, last year, funding for TIRA. The way that legislation
was drafted, it was only operational if it was funded. The
Congress, to date, has not decided to fund TIRA. But I think
TIRA was a 3-year program scheduled to expire in FY 2003.
Mr. Dodaro. Congressman, the authorization for the Truth in
Regulating Act expires in fiscal year 2003. We did request
supplemental funding in fiscal year 2001, and then again for
fiscal year 2002 in our budget; neither was approved.
We were prepared to implement the legislation if it was
funded. We do believe we have the expertise in-house to carry
it out, and we were prepared to, if funding had been provided.
With regard to the National Academy, as Mr. Walker
indicated, we have worked out an arrangement with the Academy
to get expedited access to the appropriate technical expertise
that we need, and we are actually using the National Academy on
a number of projects now. So we think we will be able to handle
those issues.
ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Mr. Moran. The last subject matter, you have been asked, as
we all know, to obtain information on the Energy Policy
Development Group. Can you share with us what information you
have requested and why you need it?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Moran, at the request initially of two
ranking minority Members of this House, we began this project.
Their request was subsequently joined by four committee
chairmen in the Senate in January of this year.
As you undoubtedly know, our statute says we shall do work
for committees. Therefore, our view was we were compelled to
proceed. I am not happy with the fact that we have had to bring
suit in this matter. I generally don't think it is a good idea
for one branch of government to sue another branch of
government. I don't think there are any winners when you sue,
other than the lawyers who end up making some money out of it.
However, in this particular circumstance I believe we were
compelled to proceed. We tried very hard to work it out. I
personally made efforts on various occasions over a 6-month
period to try to work out something that would prevent us from
having to file suit.
There were statutory mechanisms available to the President
and the Director of OMB that could have prevented us from
filing suit which they did not take advantage of. They did not
claim executive privilege. I think it is unfortunate, but
unless we are able to reach some accommodation, then I think it
is an issue in which only the courts can decide. I just hope it
isn't a precursor of other problems down the road.
Mr. Moran. You have hired an outside law firm to represent
you?
Mr. Walker. That is correct. We have hired Sidley & Austin,
which is one of the largest firms in the country. Our lead
litigator is Carter Phillips, who was a member of Reagan's
Justice Department. He has appeared before the Supreme Court at
least 20 times in the past.
Mr. Moran. Is there any other area of inquiry where you
have not been able to obtain information, whether it be
homeland security or whatever else?
Mr. Walker. One area we are concerned about right now--but
we have not been denied access, we just haven't been provided
information yet--is the Office of Homeland Security.
This is another situation where we issued a ``demand
letter'' yesterday dealing with the Commerce Department, and I
am going to be meeting with the Director of OMB about that
issue. I think there are some legitimate issues we need to talk
about and hopefully can resolve.
The Office of Homeland Security says they want to cooperate
with us, but so far they haven't, and I am hopeful they will
soon. If not, we may end up having to take additional steps.
Mr. Moran. Which would be similar to what you have had to
do with the energy policy?
Mr. Walker. Well, we are not that far yet down the road,
Mr. Moran. Clearly, what we want to do and what I am doing
right now is communicating with interested parties on the Hill.
In the case of homeland security, I think it is distinctly
possible. The reason I say that is we have 61 requests to do
work on homeland security. Most are from committee chairs. Most
are bipartisan. Some are bicameral. There is a broad-based
interest in this subject matter.
For 58 of the 61 we believe we can get everything we need
from departments and agencies. Only three require information
from the Office of Homeland Security, and we are trying to
really narrow our requests of that office, because we have a
big job to do and a limited amount of staff to do it.
But, in the end, I think these are legitimate requests; and
I am hopeful they are going to be cooperative.
Mr. Moran. And you haven't gotten any information from
them?
Mr. Walker. Not yet.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
I haven't discussed with the administration this matter,
but I don't think there is anything sinister. I think you have
the Vice President, who, as a Member of the House, and a leader
in the House in the past, has written historically about the
procedures of the House. I think he genuinely believes in his
position, and hopefully down the road we could find some way to
avoid the legal expense. You have had to move forward without
that; and I commend you, Mr. Comptroller.
Mr. Moran has submitted some questions to be answered for
the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
FTE LEVELS
Question. FY 2002 was the first year for the past several years
that GAO has been provided sufficient funding to staff up to your
authorized FTE level. What progress have you made in recruiting and
retaining staff with the skills needed to fulfill your mission? Are you
expecting a significant number of retirements or other turnover in the
next few years that may necessitate advanced hiring to provide overlap
for succession planning purposes?
Response. We are making great progress this year in recruiting and
retaining staff with the skills needed to fulfill our mission. In
formulating our hiring and workforce plans for fiscal years 2002 and
2003, we considered potential staff retirements, other turnover, and
succession planning issues anticipated in the next few years. Our
fiscal year 2002 staffing plan anticipates about 300 staff will retire
or leave the agency during the year. Also, our workforce planning
analysis indicates that almost 30 percent of our workforce will be
eligible for retirement by fiscal year 2005. To help address these
succession planning issues, our fiscal year 2002 staffing goal is to
hire about 450 permanent staff and about 150 summer interns. We have
already received about 4,900 applications for entry-level positions,
almost double the number that we received in fiscal year 2001. Our FY
2002 acceptance rate from staff offered entry-level positions is a very
impressive 76 percent. Based upon our progress to date, we expect to
accomplish our hiring goal by the end of the year.
As a result of our human capital assessment, we implemented a
number of human capital initiatives to address recruitment and
retention. For example, we have developed an active summer internship
program to attract prospective entry-level applicants. Of those staff
who interned at GAO during the summer of 2001 and were offered
permanent jobs after the summer, about 65 percent accepted--an increase
of 13 percent compared with the acceptance rate in fiscal year 2000. We
also recently revised our recruiting and college relations strategies
to become more competitive with private and public organizations in
targeting and hiring diverse, high caliber, entry-level staff with the
skills and abilities needed to achieve our strategic goals and
objectives. We are now recruiting on the campuses of over 50 of the
nation's top colleges and universities with a wide diversity of
students, and have initiated an outreach program to private sector
firms to expand our recruiting base. In addition, we have established a
Professional Development Program to maximize the opportunities for
entry-level staff to succeed. The program exposes them to a variety of
work experiences to help them assess where their interests may lie, and
enables GAO to obtain a broader perspective on the staff's capabilities
and make informed decisions on how their skills might best be used.
We are also seeing progress in staff retention. We ask departing
staff to complete an exit questionnaire and continually monitor staff
departures to provide insight into the reasons for departure to
determine whether salary, benefits, job characteristics or other
factors impacted staff decisions. During my term as Comptroller
General, the number of staff with less than 5 years of service has
increased dramatically, from 12 percent in fiscal year 1999 to about 33
percent in fiscal year 2002.
In addition, over the last several years, we have expanded employee
empowerment; enhanced employee involvement and benefits; and enhanced
GAO's work environment and business processes, such as enabling
technology, to provide staff a stable, productive work environment and
encourage retention. We have also begun implementing a strategy to
address succession planning and skills imbalance issues. We identified
staff likely to retire over the next several years through an employee
survey, reassigned staff to other areas to fill skill vacancies and
help further develop staff, and identified employee knowledge, skills,
and abilities to assist in our workforce planning efforts.
As a result of our human capital initiatives, we reversed a trend
that existed between 1992 and 2000 of the number of separations
exceeding the number of hires, made significant progress in reshaping
the workforce to achieve a better balance among the different levels,
and enhanced the diversity of our workforce.
Question. What do you think the ``right size'' for GAO is in terms
of positions?
Response. We believe that our current authorized full-time
equivalent (FTE) level of 3,269 is adequate for the present time to
fulfill our mission. In considering our workforce needs for fiscal
years 2002 and 2003, we analyzed our past workload, productivity, and
staffing levels, as well as our pending workload and anticipated future
work under our draft strategic plan to support the Congress in fiscal
years 2002 to 2007.
During the past 5 fiscal years, we have responded to congressional
demand for our work, covering a wide range of issues of national and
international importance and resulting in significant financial and
non-financial benefits for the Congress and American taxpayers. Under
our draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2002 to 2007, we see our work
continuing in a manner similar to that of recent years, but becoming
increasingly challenging and complex. We believe that a workforce of
3,269 FTEs provides the staffing level and human capital necessary to
remain responsive to congressional requests on issues of growing
complexity, begin addressing various congressional requests awaiting
GAO assistance, and conduct a reasonable amount of research and
development work necessary to prepare us to assist the Congress in
evaluating other emerging and breaking issues. The requested FTE level
also provides the amount of flexibility we need to continue addressing
the human capital challenges facing our workforce.
TRANSIT SUBSIDY
Question. You have requested increases in your transit subsidy and
student loan repayment programs. Explain what you hope to achieve
through these programs, and why you believe the increases are
necessary.
Response. Our transit subsidy and student loan repayment programs
provide GAO additional tools needed to help achieve a level playing
field comparable to executive branch agencies and other professional
service entities with whom we compete for talent. The requested
increase for the transit subsidy program will allow GAO to continue to
provide benefits that are comparable to the executive branch and to
cover anticipated new program participants.
Public accounting and management consulting firms provide
competitive starting salaries, often far above federal entry salary
rates, and lucrative incentive pay to attract the best graduates and to
retain the best employees. While GAO has been successful in marketing
itself as the premier accountability organization in the federal
government and has leveraged the flexibilities of federal salary rates
for new hires wherever possible, the transit subsidy and student loan
repayment programs help to narrow or offset the gap between federal
base pay and compensation packages offered by competitors, especially
for recent college graduates with significant debt.
Since fiscal year 1999, we have experienced a steady decline in
staff with 5 to 10 years experience with GAO. These benefits are
imperative to assist us in helping to retain entry-level staff and
staff with skills critical to active engagements. Our experience has
been that if we retain entry-level staff for at least 3 years, we have
a very good chance of keeping them long-term.
INFORMATION RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I could spend a lot of time following up on that
line of questioning, but first let me start by saying to you
that I value at the highest possible level the information that
the Congress can get by way of the work of an organization such
as yours. We have so many resources around here that range from
people who belong in the third House, which is known as the
lobbying group, the Library of Congress, nonprofit and other
organizations and universities. There is a plentiful flow of
information, but making sense out of that is not always easy.
In the meantime, we depend an awful lot on you to help us sift
through a lot of that.
So I would like to have some better way of knowing or
having a line of communication from my job as the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Defense, where we fund all national
security and intelligence agencies, to those priority requests
that rise to the top of your thinking and your people's
imagination. That way we would at least not look at one request
as just another part of a list of 1,000 requests, because there
are endless reports around here.
I am not sure if there are ways whereby you can help
someone like our organization do that. Let me have you respond.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Lewis, absolutely.
First, there are several things we have done and there are
other things we contemplate doing to try to help in this
regard. For one thing, we have improved the transparency of the
work we are doing for the Congress. We have available on-line--
available to you and other Members--all of the requests that we
have accepted, what the nature of the requests are, and various
other information.
Second, we are trying to increase our outreach efforts,
particularly with committee chairmen, subcommittee chairmen and
ranking members, to try to obtain a better understanding of
what is on their agenda, what are they concerned about, and
what are the issues they are having difficulty with.
We also, to the extent we end up having more requests than
we have allocated resources, try to work with the committee
leadership to help prioritize what we ought to be spending our
time on.
As you undoubtedly know, 85 percent of the work we do is
specifically at the request of the Congress. The other 15
percent benefits congressional needs. This document you have
been provided a copy of has the framework of our strategic
plan, which is put together in consultation with the Congress
such that we try to end up filling in the gaps in those areas
that are in this strategic plan with that 15 percent that
otherwise we are not getting requests.
I would be more than happy, along with my colleagues, to
visit with you at any time and give you a status report on
where we are at and what we see as some of the key issues that
you may want to pursue.
Mr. Dodaro. Congressman, right now we have the update of
our strategic plan for serving the Congress in discussion draft
that we made available to everybody. We also make a concerted
effort every year to have an outreach discussion with either
the Members or the staff directors of every committee in
Congress to talk about setting priorities. Our strategic plan
is updated every 2 years to coincide with every new Congress to
make sure we are planning ahead.
We also have set in our congressional protocols a clear
priority scheme for how we react to requests from the Congress.
Priority one are requests from either the leadership or
committee chairs or ranking minority Members. Priority two are
requests from members on a committee of relevant jurisdiction.
Priority three are requests from Members that are not on a
committee of relevant jurisdiction and are just asking for GAO
assistance as part of their interest in a particular topic or
subject area.
So through the strategic plan or outreach activities and
trying to set these priorities, we balance the workload,
hopefully, to address the critical issues, both as we see them
and as the requests come in from the Congress.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Lewis, I would be more than happy to sit
down with you and cover this issue at your convenience. I think
it would be great to be able to do that.
TRANSFORMATION OF THE MILITARY
Mr. Lewis. I have always felt it is often not what but who
is involved, and we have very, very fine staff helping us with
this defense funding material that covers half of our
discretionary appropriations funding.
I'd like to look at one area, specifically the area of
military transformation. It is a word that is bandied around
here a lot, but it goes from soup to nuts. I don't know if
anybody within GAO is in a position of beginning to get a
handle of what may actually be changing or actually figuring
out how you can double up on legacy systems. That area of
expertise is very helpful.
Mr. Dodaro. Actually, we have a number of efforts under way
concerning the transformation efforts in the services, whether
it be the Army or the Navy. So we have requests and have in our
plans to do additional work in that area and have already
started.
MILITARY'S HUMAN CAPITAL CHALLENGE
Mr. Walker. The other area on transformation, as you know,
Mr. Lewis, some people view transformation as platform
transformation, and platforms are an element of transformation.
But, frankly, the biggest challenge I see at DOD and in the
services with regard to transformation is a human capital
challenge, the people challenge, the cultural transformation
challenge, and that is something that I would love to have a
chance to talk to you about.
I will tell you, one of the things we are also doing with
the administration is that, despite the frustrations associated
with the piece of litigation that Mr. Moran mentioned, we have
probably never had a more constructive working relationship
with Cabinet-level officials and OMB than we have right now.
We have had several meetings with Secretary Rumsfeld,
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Under Secretary Aldridge, et
cetera, talking about some of the challenges at DOD and what
our views are as to what needs to be done in order to try to
help transform that organization, which is a multi-year effort.
It is seven-plus years. But there is never a good time to
start. Actually, there always is. It is now. We need to stick
with it.
Mr. Lewis. Well, I must say that, within that mix, it is
absolutely vital that you know the personalities who are
plugged in with one another. But as long as we are going to
spend this much money it ought to be in my view, for America's
leadership for peace 15 years from now. How we get there and
are able to afford that is critical. So between now and then
the kind of analysis you are capable of providing and your
guidance in helping us find directions could be very valuable
if we all give it priority.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, you are more than generous with my
wandering here.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Taylor. Fine. Mr. Moran, did you have other questions?
Mr. Moran. That is all right.
Mr. Lewis. He is on my subcommittee, too, so he won't care.
Mr. Taylor. We will submit for the record any further
questions we have, for you to answer. In addition, supply for
the record any reprogramming request approved by the committee.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Questions for the Record From Representative Hoyer
Question. Your testimony describes efforts to improve efficiency by
enabling staff to access GAO resources from anyplace at any time. The
anthrax experience has highlighted a need for such improvements for the
House. What benefits have you realized in this area that might benefit
the House, and the government generally?
Response. As a result of recent events and subsequent planning
efforts, we have implemented several initiatives that will:
1. help ensure that continuity of our operations;
2. minimize disruption in service to the Congress;
3. provide support to Members of the House of Representatives and
staff;
4. provide staff some additional flexibility to telecommute; and
5. ensure access to GAO data and systems from remote locations,
including non-traditional workstations within the building.
For example, we accelerated our plans to establish an offsite
disaster recovery facility for network operations and critical
information systems that allow for minimal disruption in staff
productivity and continued service to the Congress. We also upgraded
our communications capacity by increasing the number of telephone
lines; expanded our voicemail system to allow more simultaneous users;
installed antennas to facilitate the use of cell phones and Blackberrys
within the GAO building; and provided wireless, remote access to the
GAO's agency-wide network and email systems.
MANDATORY INCREASES
Question. Your budget request includes about $20 million to cover
mandatory pay and benefits increases. Most of these benefits are
automatic under current law. On page 33 of your justification, you
indicate that you will review the GAO pay systems and structures to
identify ways to increase the percentage of compensation tied directly
to performance. Please elaborate. Will staff be held harmless under
your plans? How will this affect GAO's budget in the future?
Response. We plan to initiate a review over the next year to
determine what changes we can make within existing statutory authority
to more directly link all pay increases to performance results and
contributions to our strategic plan for serving the Congress. We do not
expect that recommended changes would impact our budget request or
result in the need for additional funds. An employee's existing pay
level at the time that a new pay system is implemented would not be
reduced, and such employees would be held harmless.
At GAO, we have already taken significant steps to better link
compensation, performance, and results. We recently revised the
performance appraisal system for all staff to incorporate GAO's core
values and strategic goals. We also recently revised the performance
appraisal system for analysts to reflect performance competencies and
best practices. We are now revising the performance appraisal system
for attorneys and mission support staff to incorporate performance
competencies.
In addition, the merit increases granted under our analyst and
attorney compensation systems are based on performance results. We are
currently reviewing the compensation system for our mission support
staff to develop a system that better links merit increases to
performance results.
GAO STAFFING
Question. Since 1992, GAO staffing has been reduced by about 40
percent. In 2000, Congress gave you additional flexibility to manage
GAO's human capital and last year we provided funds to increase
staffing. Please describe your progress in increasing your staffing
levels. How have you used these new human capital flexibilities?
Response. We are making great progress this year in recruiting and
retaining staff with the skills needed to fulfill our mission. Our
fiscal year 2002 staffing plan anticipates about 300 staff will retire
or leave the agency during the year. Also our workforce planning
analysis indicates that almost 30 percent of our workforce will be
eligible for retirement by fiscal year 2005. To help address these
succession planning issues, our fiscal year 2002 staffing goal is to
hire about 450 permanent staff and about 150 summer interns. We have
already received about 4,900 applications for entry-level positions,
almost double the number that we received in fiscal year 2001. Our FY
2002 acceptance rate from staff offered entry-level positions is a very
impressive 76 percent. Based upon our progress to date, we expect to
accomplish our hiring goal by the end of the year.
As a result of our human capital assessment, we implemented a
number of human capital initiatives to address recruitment and
retention. For example, we have developed an active summer internship
program to attract prospective entry-level applicants. Of those staff
who interned at GAO during the summer of 2001 and were offered
permanent jobs after the summer, about 65 percent accepted--an increase
of 13 percent compared with the acceptance rate in fiscal year 2000. We
also recently revised our recruiting and college relations strategies
to become more competitive with private and public organizations in
targeting and hiring diverse, high caliber, entry-level staff with the
skills and abilities needed to achieve our strategic goals and
objectives. We are now recruiting on the campuses of over 50 of the
nation's top colleges and universities with a wide diversity of
students, and have initiated an outreach program to private sector
firms to expand our recruiting base. In addition, we have established a
Professional Development Program to maximize the opportunities for
entry-level staff to succeed. The program exposes them to a variety of
work experiences to help them assess where their interests may lie, and
enables GAO to obtain a broader perspective on the staff's capabilities
and make informed decisions on how their skills might best be used.
In addition, over the past several years, we have expanded employee
empowerment; enhanced employee involvement and benefits; and enhanced
GAO's work environment and business processes, such as enabling
technology, to provide staff a stable, productive work environment and
encourage retention. We have also begun implementing a strategy to
address succession planning and skills imbalance issues. We identified
staff likely to retire over the next several years through an employee
survey, reassigned staff to other areas to fill skill vacancies and
help further develop staff; and identified employee knowledge, skills
and abilities to assist in our workforce planning efforts.
As a result of our human capital initiatives, we reversed a trend
that existed between 1992 and 2000 of the number of separations
exceeding the number of hires, made significant progress in reshaping
the workforce to achieve a better balance among the different levels,
and enhanced the diversity of our workforce.
In fiscal year 2001, we began implementing some of the new
personnel management authorities provided under the human capital
legislation enacted in October 2000. After developing policies for the
new voluntary early retirement authority, we provided our staff an
opportunity to apply for early retirement, which resulted in the
departure of 52 employees. In addition we established several senior
level positions authorized by the legislation. We are currently in the
process of developing updated policies and procedures for reduction-in-
force and voluntary separation incentive payments.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Question. This year you are implementing a student loan repayment
program and have requested an increase for fiscal year 2003. Please
describe the need for this increase and the benefits you expect to
realize. What criteria do you have to qualify employees for this
program?
Response. GAO plans to use the student loan repayment program as a
recruiting incentive for shortage category positions, such as
economists, and especially as a retention incentive to help address our
succession planning challenges. Public accounting and management
consulting firms provide competitive starting salaries, often far above
federal entry salary rates, and lucrative incentive pay to attract the
best graduates and to retain the best employees. While GAO has been
successful in marketing itself as the premier accountability
organization in the federal government and has leveraged the
flexibilities of federal salary rates for new hires wherever possible,
the transit subsidy and student loan repayment programs help to narrow
or offset the gap between federal base pay and compensation packages
offered by competitors, especially for recent college graduates with
significant debt.
Current law and regulation require employees to sign a 3-year
service agreement, allow staff to receive up to $6,000 annually, and
establish a lifetime maximum of $40,000. We are in the process of
developing our implementing guidelines and criteria consistent with
these regulations. In addition, we have identified hard-to-fill
positions for which we plan to offer student loan repayments as a
recruiting incentive. We have also identified critical skill needs for
on-going engagements for which we would offer student loan repayments
as a retention incentive.
SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
Question. The House appreciated GAO's hospitality during the
anthrax episode. You have requested $4 million for security and safety
enhancements. Have you completed your security threat assessment?
Response. The safety and security of GAO's staff, guests,
information, and assets are a top priority for GAO. In the aftermath of
the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax incidents, we
accelerated our efforts to address safety and security as a key
management challenge. As a result, we hired a contractor who conducted
a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of our security, including
potential physical, nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological
threats. The contractor made a number of recommendations to enhance
building access control, perimeter security, personnel security, and
physical security. We have assessed the contractor's recommendations
and are refining our implementation plan to further strengthen security
and safety within GAO. We would be pleased to brief the Committee on
the contractor's specific findings and recommendations.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Question. Last year, this Committee requested that you review the
role and operations of the Capitol Police Board, its satutory
underpinnings and its mission, and to recommend possible alternatives
to ensure that appropriate oversight of the U.S. Capitol Police is
achieved. Please describe your progress and findings.
Response. Pursuant to the Committee's direction, we reviewed four
topics regarding the Capitol Police Board: (1) the Board's roles and
responsibilities and the statutory authority to carry them out; (2) the
Board's current functions and principal operational processes; (3) the
extent to which the characteristics of the Board's functions and
processes are consistent with applicable standards of corporate
governance and internal and management control; and (4) options for
alternative structures for the Board. To address these topics, we
analyzed relevant documents; compiled a composite benchmark of
prevailing standards of corporate governance, internal and management
control, and police management and administration; and interviewed
current and former Board members and Capitol Police officials, and
selected current and former Senate and House congressional staff who
have interacted with the Board. To present the results of our review,
we have drafted a report that is currently undergoing review. In
accordance with discussions with Committee staff, we anticipate
submitting the final report to the Committee on or about May 31, 2002.
[Clerk's note: Following are the reprogramming request
approved by the subcommittee.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Taylor. We appreciate you and all of your staff coming
today. We appreciate the fine work you do.
The subcommittee stands in recess until Thursday, April 25,
at 10 a.m., at which time we will consider the budget request
of Architect of the Capitol and the Congressional Budget
Office.
Thursday, April 25, 2002.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WITNESSES
ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
MICHAEL G. TURNBULL, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Opening Statement
Mr. Taylor. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will take up the Fiscal Year 2003 budget of the Office
of Architect of the Capitol. We have the Honorable Alan
Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, and several members of
his staff.
Good morning to all of you.
Before we begin, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the Architect and all of his employees for their
diligence and commitment to this institution after October
15th. These individuals were heavily involved in the
displacement and temporary relocation of congressional
employees, all aspects of the anthrax remediation and
reoccupation of our buildings.
These efforts, many times went unnoticed. They involved
hours upon hours, mostly late in the night, that did not make
the front page of Roll Call, but they were core to the success
of this endeavor.
Alan, you personally deserve our praise not only for
guiding your employees, but as a member of the Police Board on
which you serve, you were constantly involved in making
difficult and historical decisions during this unprecedented
time. I thank you not only on behalf of myself but also on
behalf of all my colleagues in the House for the work that you
did last year.
Mr. Moran, do you have a statement before we proceed?
Mr. Moran. I think that is fine. I have a lot of questions,
but I don't believe I need to make a statement. I don't know if
Mr. Hoyer, ranking member of House Administration, needs to
make a statement.
Mr. Hoyer. No.
Mr. Taylor. Alan, could you introduce your staff. I know
you have a prepared statement and it will be inserted in the
record. If you would like to make a short comment, and then we
will go into questions.
Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. May I introduce
Michael Turnbull, Assistant Architect, and Amita Poole, who is
our Chief of Staff. And we have other supporting folks for
technical questions as we go further with the questioning.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the agency, I
truly thank you for those sensitive and appreciative words that
you spoke. The Congress and we, as an arm of the Congress, have
gone through a very difficult time since September 11 and the
anthrax problems that we suffered. So many people in this
agency and the police force and the Sergeant at Arms Office,
throughout all of the officers and offices in Congress, really
responded in such a positive, upbeat, ``can do,'' ``let us keep
the ball rolling'' type of attitude. I mean, we had people in
our organization who virtually worked or were available around
the clock to try to provide information to the Centers for
Disease Control, to all the folks who were remediating our
buildings and trying to deal with this new initiative, this new
threat to security since our last hearing.
All I can do, Mr. Chairman, is once again thank you so much
for that recognition. I know it means an awful lot to me and
the 2000 people in my agency; and it is critically important to
do that. Thank you, sir.
[The opening statement of the Architect of Capital, Mr.
Hantman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CAPITOL COMPLEX PROJECTS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
I know we have a lot of questions about the construction
that is going on outside the Capitol. Would you provide the
Subcommittee with a time line for the construction of the
Visitor Center and the House perimeter security construction
and other pertinent property projects, especially around the
Capitol, because our members are getting a lot of questions
about what is happening? And I think you have the material
here, to answer these questions and that would be helpful to
start with.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is so difficult to
really visualize what is really happening over here.
In reality, we have four projects going on virtually at the
same time, and we just brought a couple of boards to be able to
talk you through it, explain it. And I think what we really
need to do down the road is to be able to have an opportunity
to present it to a much wider range of membership, both the
House and the Senate, to answer whatever questions they have
and to have a real quiet time to talk about it.
But in terms of a brief overview, one of the projects that
you see happening on the Capitol grounds right now relates to
the scaffolding that you see going up on the west and at the
dome. This is part of the $41.6 million painting and temporary
remediation project we have for the Capitol dome.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we completed the $7.5 million
crack study evaluation, connection evaluation, all that; and we
had originally talked last year about the need for
approximately $50 million for renovation of the Capitol dome.
With all the work we have going on around here, this is a
temporary type of effort that we have, which will be repainting
the dome over the existing paint as opposed to stripping it
down to base metal and repainting it.
We will be making a couple of splices on some structural
members that don't want to wait. We will be doing other
cosmetic things and basically putting that project to bed for
the next 4, 5 years until we can come back to you, Mr.
Chairman, with the full scope of work for the Capitol dome.
Mr. Taylor. This is on top of the work we did a few years
ago inside the dome and the work that was necessary there?
Mr. Hantman. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. The dome had been on a
painting cycle of something like every 4 years. The last time
the dome was painted was in 1988 so we are really overdue. So
if we are not going to do the major project of stripping it
down to base metal, starting to sew together the cracks in the
metal plates and things of this nature, replace some of the
rusted out segments, this scope of work is meant to essentially
keep it whole until we can initiate that major project down the
road when we have less happening on our plate in other areas.
This project will be complete basically at the end of the
summer and out of the way.
Another piece of work you will see initiated next week will
be on the west side of the Capitol, generally in this area. As
you know, the Memorial Day concert is coming up. The National
Park Service, with Mr. Colbert, is doing a great job in
producing that.
I don't know if you folks were aware at the last Memorial
Day concert, we had a deluge. There was so much rain that
people were virtually sitting in pools. So they have
commissioned the design of a new tent on the west front of the
Capitol, and that new tent will have the ability to house all
of the band, the entertainers and the dignitaries that come up
to perform on the stage. And they will be putting in new
anchors for this larger tent on the west front. That is an
activity you will see, starting next week.
What we see now also, though, throughout the Capitol campus
is the perimeter security program going on. We are coming to
the end of a program which basically took the perimeter
security. And as you have seen on the west side, we have
completed the area, removed the bollards, removed the jersey
barriers in conjunction with the entry walkways on the House
and Senate sides.
We have also run the bollards up the west drives and we are
at the point right now we are working at the intersection of
the south entrance to the Capitol where most folks from the
House come in. We have the police kiosk in place, the island in
place where the kiosk is situated, and there is a turnaround
island that we will also be replacing. And I will show you a
photograph of that in a moment.
The work over here will be progressing towards the east,
and we project by September to complete all of this work on the
House side for the perimeter security work. The areas you see
in green along the East Capitol Street entrance, and also on
the Senate side, really won't be completed until the Capitol
Visitor Center is completed, because we have a tunnel on New
Jersey Avenue that will be put under Constitution Avenue; and
all of our truck deliveries to the Visitor Center will be
coming under there, so we didn't want to install the bollards
and the security measures over there in a permanent manner
until we had that excavation work done. So that will be done
later on, as will the reinforcement of the walls and the
perimeter security on the eastern side of the Capitol. That is
pretty much what you see happening right now as far as the
Visitor Center--as far as the perimeter security is concerned.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the Architect of the Capitol
provided the following:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
VISITOR CENTER
Mr. Hantman. As far as the Visitor Center is concerned, Mr.
Chairman, this is the outline of the Visitor Center; but maybe
we can show a quick rendering before we go ahead to that.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, that is fine.
Mr. Hantman. This shows the view of the East Capitol Plaza.
The white line out here is the footprint of the Capitol Visitor
Center. The yellow line defines the construction staging areas
that we will be defining throughout the east front. What will
be happening is basically, in June, we will be completing the
fence line that you see under construction right now and will
be using these eggs as staging areas for the Capitol Visitor
Center project.
Back in 1958, 1960, when the east front was extended, when
the dome was last worked on and the Senate tunnel was worked
on, that was the function that was used as well. And what we
are doing now in work, Mr. Chairman, is being able to clear out
this footprint for the excavation work of all the utilities
that currently are in that footprint--the steam lines, the
water lines, the sewer lines that exist in this area--so that
when we award the contract for the foundation work that they
will not have any impediments in their way.
This is kind of preconstruction work. And what you see on
the south end of the Capitol area is relocation of many of
those lines. In fact, there is a steam line relocation project
occurring on the west side of the Capitol as well. So most of
the construction you see on both the House and the Senate side
is part of this relocation of utility work that we have going
on.
What I would like to explain to you also is the kind of
accommodations we have made to allow this work to go on while
the day-to-day operations of the Capitol are not impeded. If we
could see the next board, please.
What we are trying to do is to assure that day-to-day
operation of the House and the Senate can proceed most
appropriately, that visitors can come on in. This shows the
area down by the House steps. The fence line that we show here
is being built now and will be in place in June. What we are
going to be doing is allowing a new drive facility, so cars
will be able to come in, drop people off to be able to go to a
vote, to enter the building, and that we will be able to still
accommodate that. But the ability to park cars in the short run
on the plaza, they will have to be moved so we can actually do
the work, do the excavation work over here.
What this shows, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that Members
will still be able to access the House side going up the
stairs, going into the doorway under the driveway and also
utilize the entrance from the south end. So all of those
accesses will be in place. But the access at the Memorial Door
and the Library Door will be used only for emergency egress as
opposed to access for anybody else. And all of the visitors
will be relocated essentially to coming into the west side.
What this shows, Mr. Chairman is the Capitol Building over
here, the west side of the Capitol heading towards The Mall.
Tour buses will be coming in on the west side now, dropping
their people off over here. They will be marshaled in the area
down on the west opposite the Botanic Garden. From there, they
will walk up the walkway to the new temporary screening
facility that is under construction right now; and you can see
that basically on the south side of the Capitol. That temporary
screening facility will be available in the middle of May and
people then, instead of going to the small little kiosk we have
on the east side, they will be relocated here.
They will be coming in from the west side and screened
remotely in this temporary visitor facility and come up onto
the plaza, onto the terrace area, and walk through the west
side of the Capitol and then have access into the Capitol for
their tours. And they will also egress on the west side of the
Capitol.
So all of the work you are seeing right now is all
preparatory for clearing the way on the east front for the
major foundation work to occur.
We currently have the foundation contract out to bid. We
are getting good response from the industry at this point in
time. We are looking forward to getting those bids back in
June, awarding the contract by the end of the month. The
contractor would probably be mobilizing by July and actually on
site by August and doing heavy construction work at that point.
In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, if you and other members of the
committee or the House would want to take a little visit over
to the World War II Memorial, they are using a slurry wall
construction technique that we will be using here; and you will
be able to visualize a lot better what we are going to be in
for and the type of disruption and debris that we will be
seeing as this project proceeds.
So the time line basically says that we will be awarding
that foundation contract. We will then be awarding a second
contract for the rest of the building. That work will then be
proceeding, so that by the time of the inaugural in January,
2005, we will be able to support the inaugural and, at that
point in time, finish the interior of the facilities, install
the exhibits, take care the finish treatments inside the
building; and by fall of 2005 have an opening to the public for
the full utilization of the building. But we will be supporting
the inaugural in January, 2005 for screening activities and
other security-related measures.
CVC QUESTIONS
Mr. Taylor. Before we proceed any further into other areas,
why don't we have a session of questions primarily on the CVC,
and then we will proceed into other matters.
Mr. Moran. I will defer to Mr. Hoyer initially, because
being on the House Administration Committee, he has been very
much involved in this.
[Clerk's note. The following questions from Mr. Moran were
submitted to be answered for the record.]
Capital Visitor Center
Question. Please provide us with a status report on this project.
Response. CVC Past Year Milestones:
Total funding for CVC project appropriated.
The CVC remains on budget with two independent estimates.
The resulting reconciled estimate confirmed the estimated cost of the
construction to be below the $265 million budget for this project at
the 75% design stage. The additional elements added to the project,
such as the Library of Congress tunnel construction and the House and
Senate shell face fit-out, are not included in this estimate.
CVC starts on schedule: Expanding the pre-construction
work to include the relocation of utility lines--steam, electrical,
telephone, and water--that currently feed the Capitol through the East
Front, as well as the tree preservation package, allowed the project to
proceed without full funding nor jeopardizing the impact to the
Capitol.
Approval of the initial exhibit floor concept received
from the CPC Leadership.
CVC design meets enhances security standards: Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) review, after the September 11th
attacks, resulting in verifying the design includes provisions which
mitigate risks from external attacks, when coupled with a secure
perimeter of the Capitol.
CVC team uses best value source selection process to
obtain contractors: Source selection process is being conducted jointly
with GSA.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) for Sequence 1 released
February 2002: (Technical, management and past performance for the
excavation, foundation and structure.) RFP Pricing portion released in
April; award expected in June 2002.
A traffic management study completed: Resulting in DC
Public Works approved designed routes for construction vehicles
entering and leaving the project site.
CVC Projects Under Contract:
Tree Preservation contract awarded October 2001.
Utility relocation contract awarded October 2001; most
work to be completed by July 2002.
Temporary visitor receiving facility under construction.
Scheduled opening mid-May 2002.
Design continues for the main building project; Sequence 1
completed in April 2002. Sequence 2 design will continue until later
this year.
Construction site security developed with Capitol Police
coordination.
Relocation activities (to vacate East Front affected
areas) being coordinated with the Senate and House, most relocation
plans are the responsibility of the House and Senate, with AOC
providing scheduling and milestones.
General conditions and miscellaneous utility contracts
being completed advance of main construction.
Relocation of the media's ``Elm'' site is under design.
Location for the temporary location is on the terrace of the Cannon
building.
Historic preservation of the Olmsted landscape elements to
be for bid in May 2002. Provides removal and eventual replacement of
historic elements to the Capitol grounds to allow CVC construction in
the areas they occupy.
CVC security system design continues under the
surveillance of the U.S. Capitol Police.
Design for House Expansion space stated; currently working
with House Leadership to finalize requirements.
Question. Have any issues come up that could impact the budget or
timing of this project?
Response. Yes. The main issues, which could affect the budget and
schedule, are:
Timely approval of obligation plans.
Timely relocation of occupants in the East Front of the
Capitol, from the areas affected by the CVC construction, which is the
responsibility of the House (and Senate) to vacate by the end of
February 2003;
Expansion space planning and decisions by the House must
be made within the next two months for the project team to allow this
part of the project to be completed within the timeframe for the main
CVC project. If decisions are not reached within this time, then the
cost for expansion space will increase due to the fact that it will be
a separate project and not completed within our construction manager's
contract.
Conflict between construction and on-going Capitol
operations, this includes work stoppages due to staff requests or
dignitary visits.
Unforeseen site conditions during excavation.
Question. How are you balancing the need to move quickly on this
project against the need to continue business-as-usual here at the U.S.
Capitol?
Response. Communication and planning are and will continue to be
the keys to ensuring the project stays on schedule while minimizing
disruption to the Capitol community. First, though close coordination
with House and Senate Leadership, the Capitol Preservation Commission,
the Capitol Police, the Capitol Guide Service, building management and
other key players, we have established clear lines of communication to
keep all parties informed of ongoing and upcoming activities as well as
how these activities may impact their daily routines. Weekly meetings,
site walks, presentations for Members and staff, the distribution of a
weekly CVC construction summary, and a project well site are some of
the tools we have used to keep the Capitol community aware of CVC
construction activates.
Second, through careful planning, we expect to reduce the
likelihood that work will be stopped due to noise or other
construction-related disturbances. For example, we have worked and will
continue to work during recess periods to execute utility relocations
and other work potentially disruptive to building operations. In
addition, much of the tree removal effort, necessary to clear the
project footprint for excavation, was done during evening hours so as
to minimize impacts to parking. These, and other pre-construction
activities are being accomplished in advance of the main excavation
contract, thereby allowing us to minimize the risk of unforeseen
conditions once excavation begins. Further, we have phased project
activities to keep portions of the project area accessible for fire and
life-safety needs during excavation and foundation work.
In other efforts to maintain normal working conditions for
Members and staff, the CVC project team will install sound-dampening
windows on all East Front windows to minimize noise disruption during
construction. Temporary parking facilities, swing space trailers to
accommodate personnel displaced from the East Front, and temporary
House and Senate media sites (outside the project footprint) also will
facilitate the continuance of normal operations. Temporary visitor
screening facilities are being installed on both the North and South
ends of the Capitol to keep tours flowing through the building
throughout construction. All of these planning efforts, combined with a
proactive communications plan, will maximize our ability to maintain
our schedule while ensuring that Members' and staff's can maintain our
schedule while ensuring that Members' and staff's can maintain
``business as usual.''
Question. Do the business realities add significant costs to the
project?
Response. Yes. If you were to compare doing this project adjacent
to a completely vacant building, the cost to do this project would be
significantly less. Having to relocate utilities and to keep the
building fully operational adds additional cost to the project. The
project has done the following recently, to keep the building
operational, which would not have been done if business reality were
not present:
Temporary screening facility: allows visitors to be
screened in a location other than the construction site, which added
approximately $1 million to the project cost.
Acoustic window treatment: allows occupants to remain
within the building by reducing the sound from the construction site,
adding approximately $400,000.
Parking facilities: CVC has provided temporary parking
lots to reduce the impact to Members and staff for the areas displaced
by construction, adding approximately $200,000 to the project cost.
Plans for State Funerals: while it may seem minor, the
construction of the CVC on the East Front has disrupted the funeral
arrangements for the Capitol, requiring planning to accommodate this
need.
Temporary building entry canopies: allowing for dignitary
visits and Member drive ups, the CVC is providing tents and other
measures to accommodate Members and events to enter the Capitol while
the East Front parking area is not accessible. Added cost is
approximately $100,000.
Trash and building supplies: Removal of the building
``lifts'' requires that an alternate means of trash removal and
deliveries into the Capitol are provided. This is still undergoing
study, thus the cost to provide for this service to keep the Capitol
operational is not estimated yet.
Media sites: The Swamp (Senate) and Elm (House) media
sites will be out of use due to construction, so the CVC office has
provided a temporary site during the construction period for the House
and Senate (the House will be on the Cannon Terrace). Approximate cost
is $200,000.
Temporary utilities: if the Capitol were not occupied
during construction, there would not be a need for installing temporary
utilities that will be displaced due to construction, but would be
operational, after completion. Approximately cost to relocate utilities
due to keeping building operational has not been estimated separately
from the utilities which require relocation due to new building, thus
no cost is available.
Question. Do you see some major logistical problems arising as
construction to renovate the Supreme Court and build the new Capitol
Visitors' Center get underway? Will there be a need to close First
Street?
Response. No major logistical problems anticipated. First Street
will have some minor utilities installed, but closure of this street is
not required. Communication between these two projects has already
started and will continue during the planning phases.
Visitor Center Briefing
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. I have been by, and I think
Bob Ney, has also been by for a briefing on what was going on
here, because our committee gets a lot of questions.
Alan, you were not very specific, but we have asked the
Architect's Office to give a briefing to all Members with the
visuals on a screen large enough so people can really get a
feel, because they are going to be living with this for the
next 3\1/2\ years, into the fall of 2005, and they are going to
be getting questions from constituents who are coming here;
moreover, Members, are going to be substantially inconvenienced
in terms of access to the entire parking area in front of the
east front of the Capitol.
Mr. Chairman, I really don't have any specific questions of
the Architect on this, but I do reiterate that the sooner we do
this, Alan, with full presentations, with the renderings that
you have discussed in terms of what it is going to look like--
particularly with respect to security the better off we will be
so that Members and the public will have a better
understanding.
This has come at a time when security and other
improvements have interfaced, and Members are very concerned
about having a Capitol that is accessible, having a Capitol
that does not look like an armed camp, and having a Capitol
that continues to be open to visitors coming from around the
country to see their Capitol.
I think that will be the result, but I think Members are
having a hard time visualizing it at this point in time.
Mr. Taylor. Will you be furnishing refreshments?
Mr. Hoyer. Whatever you want.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions, if it is
okay.
Mr. Taylor. Let me move ahead to Mr. Wamp, if we could?
Cannon Building Elevators
Mr. Wamp. Quick question, Mr. Architect.
What is the status of the elevators in Cannon? I get a lot
of complaints about that. Is there a schedule for replacement?
Mr. Hantman. Yes. We have a program for replacing all of
the elevators, campus wide.
Do you have the specific schedule, Mike?
Mr. Birkhead. We have awarded the contract on that and the
work has not actually begun. And I believe it is a 2-year
schedule to replace all of the elevators in Cannon and to
upgrade them all.
Mr. Wamp. The adventure continues. It is a lot of fun to
ride those elevators, but you never know when you are going to
get where you are going. I will hold my other questions.
Mr. Taylor. Anyone have any other questions regarding the
Capitol Visitor Center.
East Plaza Access--House Side
Mr. LaHood. I do have some questions. I am going to say
this, and I hope it is taken in the right way.
The main job that we have when we come here is to vote. I
mean, we do a lot of other things, but we are sent here to
vote. I think the inconvenience that is going to be created by
discontinuing the opportunity for Members to drive through the
plaza and rerouting Members is going to be a huge, huge problem
for Members, and for some Members, unexplainable.
Now, we have Members that drive to the Capitol from their
office for every vote, for whatever reasons they do that. They
are not going to want to walk underground and they are going to
want to be able to come in and have it be convenient.
Now, I see from your diagram, somebody could drive in. But
what you are going to have is a huge backup of cars, which
already exists because of the crazy system, whether it is
temporary or not.
I want to suggest this, Mr. Chairman, and I want to suggest
to the Architect, I don't know if there is a way you can make
it convenient, but in my opinion--and I am only one Member--you
need to make it convenient for Members to come to the House to
vote; and this is inconvenient. And I don't know--and I know
you have already got this in place, so I am speaking for
myself. I don't have, you know, the clout of leadership or
anything else.
This is a bad idea for the idea that Members come here to
vote, and it is not going to work. And you are going to have
Members screaming about their inability to get to the plaza.
You are going to have traffic backed up to kingdom come out
onto the streets because--I think this is a lousy system, even
to be able to have staff drop their Member off to come in.
Mr. Turnbull. Congressman, if I might add something, we
have been working very diligently with the House Sergeant at
Arms on parking issues on the drives and associated areas; and
I think this is another area where we can work with him and
maybe come up with some options of parking on the drive for
Members during that period.
Mr. LaHood. You have to give Members closer access to be
able to come over. People are coming from committees, coming
from meetings in their offices. You are going to have Members
missing votes; and I think this is a lousy system, I really do,
particularly in the context of the idea that our main job is to
come to the Capitol to vote.
It has got to be convenient. This is not going to be
convenient. I am opposed to it, and I think it is a bad idea,
and I don't know if it can be changed or not.
Mr. Hantman. We will work with the Sergeant at Arms, look
at the other options on the driveways and what could be
accommodated to make that operational.
Mr. LaHood. Right now, it is so inconvenient to drive a car
on the plaza. There are people walking, there is traffic backed
up. Sometimes they check your trunk sometimes they don't,
sometimes they scan you with the mirror, sometimes they don't.
I am going to tell you this: There are a lot of Members
that like the convenience of being able to drive up to the
steps, and some of it is for health reasons; and you are going
to prohibit a lot of opportunities for that.
Mr. Taylor. Other questions about the outside of the
Capitol?
Security Consultants
Mr. Wamp. One, Mr. Chairman. I had a company in my district
that was actually involved in the teaming of the security for
the recent Olympics in Utah. Are outside vendors used for
security in terms of planning? What is the coordination?
I know the Sergeant-at-Arms is hands-on involved, and there
is a team, but are any contractors used that have had
experience at staging public places and facilities from the
outside, so that we are using the knowledge of what else has
worked recently?
Obviously, the Olympics was one of the biggest security
staging areas that we have had of late, and it went off without
a hitch. People in my district were involved in that.
Are we using any outside consultants to set up perimeters?
Mr. Hantman. We are working with both governmental and
nongovernmental groups. DTRA, DOD certainly advise us. We also
have RTKL, people who are very active in the State Department
construction and security issues as well. SAIC is another firm
we are using.
So we are calling on significant outside resources to look
at, advise us, and verify effectively what we are planning to
do.
Mr. Wamp. There is a system called ``responder assets
management system,'' which I think you will hear more about in
formulating this public safety system which was involved in the
Olympics. I would like to talk to you about that in the coming
days.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Chairman, could I say, I really feel
strongly about this.
I don't know if you are here at 1 or 2 in the morning, Mr.
Architect, when some of us are trying to drive from our
apartments, and people are sleeping in their offices.
This is a joke. This is not going to work when we are in
session at 1 or 2 in the morning, and you have hordes of people
trying to drive in--trying to get to the plaza to vote. This is
a lousy idea.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Moran.
EAST PLAZA ACCESS--SENATE SIDE
Mr. Moran. Did you want to underscore that point once more?
That is fine. I think your concerns are legitimate.
Once you give the overall presentation, as Steny has
suggested, to all the Members, you are going to hear a lot of
this. Ray is not speaking in a vacuum. You are going to hear
objections from a lot of Members.
I have a number of questions on other related subjects, but
on this specifically, I would like to ask, what you are doing
on the Senate side. If there are any people that are more
difficult to please than those on the House side, they are our
colleagues on the Senate side.
How are you going to handle the Senators?
Mr. Hantman. The Senate side, Mr. Moran, is a little more
complicated than the House side.
Could we show the big overview?
As I pointed out on the plan earlier, we have the
construction of the underground facility, which is going to be
coming from New Jersey, under Constitution and up and under
here because the truck dock will be serving the entire Capitol
from the Senate side. So while the perimeter security program
will be completed for the House basically this summer, that
perimeter security won't be completed for the Senate on a
permanent basis until the Visitor Center is completed. So the
traffic island, that turnaround, all of the issues related to
bollards will not be in place until the Visitor Center major
construction is done and we are closing up that area and the
tunnel.
And they also have various similar turnaround capabilities,
the same issue of drop-off and moving off the plaza. There are
areas that will be paved on the triangle for additional
parking, I believe--is that true, Joe, on both sides?
VISITOR ACCESS
Mr. Moran. Alan, are all the visitors going to enter and
exit on the House side?
Mr. Hantman. The majority of the visitors, the tourists,
actually do come in from the House side. So there is going to
be--they will not enter from the House side necessarily. They
will be coming from the west side. Right now the House and the
Senate are talking about which doors they will come in from the
west side and which doors they will exit. They are talking----
Mr. Moran. Looks like you are channeling all visitors over
to the House side. Wherever they originate from, they are going
to have to go over to the House to get through.
Mr. Hantman. In terms of screening, that is true. Except
the Senate gallery tours will be screened, and there is a small
structure that will be built here also for Senate gallery tours
here.
STREET CLOSURES
Mr. Moran. Now, are you going to renovate the Supreme Court
at the same time as the Visitor Center?
Mr. Hantman. The Supreme Court will be under renovation.
Mr. Moran. Are you going to have to close down First Street
during construction?
Mr. Hantman. No. We have met with the Department of
Transportation of the District of Columbia, and we have worked
out routes for the trucks to come in and out of to avoid
inconveniencing the community or closing down key streets. So
that entire program has been worked out with the District of
Columbia Department of Transportation.
And, in fact, we presented that at a hearing; it was
basically a presentation to the Capitol Hill Restoration
Society, the Chamber of Commerce about a month ago; and we
talked about routes of traffic and levels of convenience or
inconvenience to the community.
BOTANIC GARDEN
Mr. Moran. Well, I don't relish your job at all.
But in addition to the concern--Mr. LaHood has raised, that
we have got to vote.
The second concern, I suppose, is that we need to make sure
that this place is secure--the buildings and everybody that
works in the buildings.
The third concern is that there should be some priority on
the appearance of the Capitol. It is the Capitol of the free
world. It is something that everybody all over the world comes
to see. It is supposed to leave them with an awestruck feeling.
Unfortunately, the aesthetics are just awful. I mean, it
looks like a dump ground. It is a place under siege.
Now, I understand all the reasons, but there have been
times when I felt that there were things you could have done to
improve the appearance, and it was just inexplicable. One thing
that continues to gripe me is the open space in front of the
Botanic Garden, facing west.
You know, the garden was closed a year before any
construction began. You let the grass grow, you cut all the
trees down. It looked like a dump. And, it was a dump many,
many months before construction began. Today, it is still a
dump.
When people come to see the Capitol, oftentimes, it is the
first thing they see. It looks awful. In Alexandria, at least
in Old Town, we would have condemned the place. But here it is
part of the U.S. Capitol Grounds, and we couldn't care less,
apparently, what it looks like.
I am not going to belabor this, but we do care about these
grounds and their aesthetics. There are some areas where we
really could do a much better job and improve the appearance
and impression this place leaves people with.
At this point, let us move on to some of the other issues,
and we will just keep that in mind.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sherwood is recognized.
[The following question from Ms. Kaptur was submitted to be
answered for the record:]
Condition of Area by the U.S. Botanic Gardens
Question. I share the concern expressed by my colleagues regarding
the condition of the land on the south side of the U.S. Botanic
Gardens. Until the new garden is built, aren't there any steps that can
be taken to level the land and provide some level of maintenance so
that it presents a better image to visitors?
Response. The Capitol Grounds crew has cleared away debris, a
combined crew of Botanic Garden and Capitol Grounds staff is mowing and
weed whacking the property. The area immediately adjacent to the West
End of the Conservatory is still being used as storage for stone and
pavers for the two courtyard gardens (Children's & Contemplation). My
plan is to build a screen to mask this construction and storage site.
VISITOR CENTER APPEARANCE
Mr. Sherwood. I am a little behind the curve here. I want
to know what it is going to look like when you are all done.
In other words, the footprint scares me. Show us what it
looks like when it is done. The inconvenience in the
construction is one thing but----
Mr. Hantman. We have a model in the crypt right now that we
can certainly give you a detailed walk-through on it.
Mr. Sherwood. Do you mean we are going to build a building
right up to the Capitol steps?
Mr. Hantman. Three-story underground structure, totally
underground.
Mr. Sherwood. What is it going to look like on top?
Mr. Hantman. The only thing you are going to see on top is
all of the asphalt paving that we see there now will be
replaced with a granite pavement. When you come in on East
Capitol Street, a new alley of trees, all of the people coming
to the screening--to the Visitor Center will be screened
remotely basically under where the existing fountains occur.
We currently have driveways----
Mr. Sherwood. The blocks we see is the granite paving?
Mr. Hantman. This is all granite paving on the same
elevation that we see currently.
Mr. Sherwood. And there are some green areas up close
there.
Mr. Hantman. These green areas, panels, pretty much where
we see the existing green panels, except we will have skylights
in them to bring some light down below into the Center.
One of the new elements that we are going to see over here
are two major skylights in the plaza trying to humanize the
scale of the plaza so people will feel welcome, be able to come
in and sit on the edge--it is essentially a water feature
around the skylight to give a human scale to what essentially
is a very large and open space.
Mr. Sherwood. Basically, the historical appearance of the
Capitol will look very much the same as it always has?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, sir. We have been very conscious of
making sure that the main show, the only show, is the Capitol
Building itself.
VISITOR CENTER CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Mr. Sherwood. And the construction projects and the
inconvenience that we are worried about, and the looks of the
place that we are concerned with, how long is this construction
project going to take?
Mr. Hantman. The majority part of the exterior construction
will be completed in time to support the 2005 inaugural in
January, 2005. Most of the successive work after that will be
inside the underground structure, doing the finishing work,
putting in the exhibits, putting in the cafeterias and all of
those supporting facilities.
Mr. Sherwood. But for 3\1/2\ years we will put up with the
setup that we have now?
Mr. Hantman. One of the major rationales for the
construction methodology we are using, sir, is we are using
something called top-down construction.
I referred to the slurry wall foundation construction
methodology that they are using at World War II, which will
basically build the outline of the facility. Once that is done,
we will be casting a slab on the top to make sure that most of
the future work will occur under that slab and will be able to
use that for emergency vehicles, for access, for some staging
for the project as well.
A lot of the noise and dirt will be done under that cap, if
you will, once that is done--within the first 2 years,
essentially.
Mr. Sherwood. So when will we get back to a normal traffic
flow?
Mr. Hantman. This is Joe Sacco, who is our Project Manager.
Mr. Sacco. Mid-2005, we are restoring the plaza.
Mr. Sherwood. I thought you were going to do all that work
underground.
Mr. Hantman. In terms of the finish work of getting the
skylights in and getting the paving done, much of that area
again will be needed to bring equipment and materials down
below grade to do some of that work. So the final finishes will
be beaten up pretty badly by the construction equipment serving
that, and the trucks, if we didn't install it when most of that
work was basically in place.
Is that correct, Joe?
Mr. Sacco. Yes.
Mr. Sherwood. You said there would be a great deal of work
that would be done after. Do you mean, there would be a great
deal of work that would be done after the inaugural of 2005?
Mr. Hantman. Underground there will be a lot of work still
occurring in terms of finishing the exhibits, the visitor
spaces. We will not be seeing a hole for the length of that
project because the cap will go on and we will be able to drive
on that surface for emergency vehicles and equipment.
Mr. Sherwood. You have got to understand we are not
construction people, we are not architects and engineers, but I
guess it is a little hard for us to understand that this
project is going to take so long.
Mr. Hantman. One of the things I think would be very
informative when we get into these presentations with the
membership, we have essentially a whole series of phases where
we can show what will be happening during this 6-month period,
this 6-month period, where the construction will be going and
what you will basically be seeing. And we will be able to show
that and discuss that in detail during those presentations,
sir.
Mr. Sherwood. But--we did establish that the general
disruption on top of the ground and the limited access is going
to continue for 3\1/2\ years.
Mr. Hantman. That's correct, sir.
BOTANIC GARDEN CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Taylor. We thought we prepared you with the Botanic
Garden Project.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Speaking of the Botanic Garden, you have got to
know when you are talking about this project, we need to learn
from our mistakes. One of our biggest problems with the Botanic
Garden was the workers needed to finish the construction on
time.
We had a booming economy. As I recall from the hearings
when we asked the question as to why we were over budget and
why there are still lawsuits, there was a worker shortage,
correct?
Mr. Hantman. No lawsuits.
Mr. Wamp. But there are settlement questions with the
contractor on cost issues, overruns, somebody has to pay those
bills.
Mr. Turnbull. We are going through the process now and
analyzing with the contractor the various open change orders.
Obviously, the contractor has his point of view and we have got
ours. We are waiting for documentation to have him substantiate
his position on any of those change orders.
Mr. Wamp. Alan, bottom line, the last big construction
project here was the Botanic Garden, and it was not as
efficient as it should be. It was not finished on time and it
went over budget. Hopefully, we have a grasp on it, but part of
it was a worker shortage.
Alan, these plans look good. I love the top-down
construction method. I appreciate the fact that you are not
going to dig a hole and leave it open for very long because we
don't want people calling us the ``Big Dig on Capitol Hill.''
My greatest fear is that this schedule, which is
understandable at this point, slips substantially into the
future. We are at war. If we have other problems, I want to
know how long does your tenure as Architect last?
Mr. Hantman. Another 5 years.
VISITOR CENTER COMPLETION
Mr. Wamp. You need to stay until this is done. Don't leave.
If this thing starts--I am dead serious--if this thing starts,
your career is this project.
It needs to be on time. It needs to be on budget. This is
the biggest construction project of a generation, plus more
generations. This Capitol is the most precious building in
America in my view. We have got to do this right, and it can't
slip past this schedule.
We have got to make every provision on the front end. We
have to dot our i's, cross our t's and finish this thing; and
mitigate the anxiety and the inconvenience and all the things
that have been addressed here, because--Alan, your career is
this project.
Mr. Hantman. You are absolutely right, sir. And what we
have done is put several major issues into place to try to
avoid some of the problems that we had on the Botanic Garden.
One of them, of course, is we have gone to an outside
construction manager. We went to a national selection process,
which GSA helped us with, and we have Gilbane Construction day-
to-day on this site, making sure that this project is well
planned, that we go through managing all of the contractors and
subcontractors appropriately.
One of the things, of course, we have in our contract is,
we are going to smack your knuckles if you don't do well, but
we also have the carrot along with the stick.
One of the things we are doing here is, we have an
incentive program. If the contractor performs different
milestones as he proceeds with the project, he gets a little
sweetener in the pot. So there is an incentive for the
contractor to want to finish on time and do the best possible
job, because we are going to evaluate him at every step of the
process.
Mr. Wamp. You talked about the 6-month step that you can
report to us.
Does that mirror the incentive process, so we know that the
guy is doing his job and the contractor is on schedule?
Mr. Hantman. Do you want to talk about that a little bit,
Joe?
Mr. Sacco. We have the evaluation periods tied to his
payment schedule. It comes out to about five periods throughout
the contract. And so we are monitoring his performance; we will
be constantly monitoring his performance and reporting.
Mr. Wamp. Well, whoever is rebuilding the Pentagon, those
are the people we need to use.
Mr. Hantman. He is our Project Manager.
Mr. Wamp. It is amazing, when you want to do something on
time, it happens.
Mr. Hantman. Joe Sacco from the Pentagon. And we brought
him over to head up our project team and coordinate the work of
Gilbane and make sure we do just that.
Mr. Taylor. I am going to join Mr. LaHood. Between this
project and the security plan no one is going to get into the
Capitol or the offices. That means that I would like to go to
North Carolina and vote, and have everybody come down and join
us down there, because I am not sure we are going to be able to
get in and out of our Washington offices.
Now that we got that out of our system we will go into
other areas and ask further questions of the Architect.
There have been several management issues, Alan, that
needed to be addressed; and that is why the committee requested
GAO to conduct a general management review of the Architect of
the Capitol. I am pleased that your office isn't taking this
confrontationally but rather as a partnership to improve the
Architect's Office, especially given these challenges we have.
I would like to ask Mr. Moran to ask questions in this area
first.
O'NEILL BUILDING
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to
leave in 5 minutes or so, and then I will be back; but I am
going to be gone for about 15 minutes, so I think the Architect
may be gone by then. So there are some questions I want to
raise. Please respond to the ones you can answer quickly, and
those that take longer time, save for last.
First, I am interested in knowing why is the O'Neill
Building still standing, if it is not occupied? Is it being
used?
Mr. Hantman. We have just vacated the last police officers
from the O'Neill Building.
Mr. Moran. It is empty now.
Are you planning on taking it down?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes, Mr. Moran. We are approximately 70
percent complete on the demolition documents. We expect to
award that contract in September. It will take 5 months, and it
will be down in January 2003.
[The following question from Mr. Moran was submitted to be
answered for the record:]
O'Neill Building
Question. Could you tell me why the O'Neill House Office Building
is still standing? Is it occupied?
Response. We are presently in the process of demolishing the
O'Neill Building. The AOC is in the process of renovating office space
at the Ford and Cannon Buildings to relocate the remaining occupants of
the building. The building should be empty of all occupants by mid to
end of June. The AOC is currently performing hazardous material removal
in the unoccupied floors. The contract to demolish the building is
scheduled for award in September 2002. The actual demolition of the
building will be started in October 2002 with completion scheduled for
January 2003.
FITNESS CENTER
Mr. Moran. Fitness center, where are we on the fitness
center? Mr. LaHood wants to hear the answer to this, too. Staff
Wellness Center, quickly, where are we on that? Are we thinking
about it?
Mr. Hantman. There are a series of needs that have been
outlined in broad terms on the House side, the Fitness Center
being one of them, the future use of the O'Neill site. There is
a master plan study, trying to put all of these issues
together, that is being initiated, so we can look at the big
picture of that, working with the Speaker's Office.
Mr. Moran. We asked the Chief Administrative Officer. I
know he is doing the survey. I just wanted to see if you were
doing anything else in that regard.
[The following question from Mr. Moran was submitted to be
answered for the record:]
Fitness Center
Question. Where are we in developing a plan for a staff fitness
center?
Response. This is a CAO action. We have worked with the CAO to
investigate possible sites for the fitness center. The CAO has
performed a market survey.
TUNNEL REPAIRS
Mr. Moran. There is an old subway tunnel that you have in
your request to repair. Is it the Constitution Avenue tunnel?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes, Mr. Moran. There are two tunnels, there
is the South Capitol tunnel which is not a pedestrian tunnel,
but there is a Constitution one. We have major safety issues
with both of those that were addressed by a study, and that is
what we are requesting.
Mr. Moran. Is there one that is used by staff?
Mr. Turnbull. No. They are strictly utilitarian tunnels.
[The following questions from Mr. Moran were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
TUNNEL REPAIRS
Question. What is the cost of the Constitution Avenue Tunnel repair
project in your request?
Response. Currently $8.5 million is requested to repair the
Constitution Avenue tunnel. This work will correct structural
deficiencies discovered as part of the Office of Compliance
investigation. In December 2000, the Office of Compliance issued a
citation to correct the structural life safety issues.
Question. Which tunnel--the old subway tunnel or the subway tunnel
currently in use--is being repaired?
Response. The work is to correct structural deficiencies in a
utility tunnel. This tunnel provides the distribution network for steam
and chilled water from the Power Plant to the buildings located on
Capitol Hill. Access to these tunnels is restricted to AOC maintenance
staff.
Question. If it is the old subway tunnel, why do you need to spend
so much to repair a tunnel that is not used by the staff?
Response. Please see above response.
Question. How much of the cost of the Constitution Avenue Tunnel
repair project is associated with the Capitol Visitors' Center work
that is underway?
Response. The tunnel repair work is not associated with the CVC
project.
Question. Please describe the South Capitol Steam Line project?
Response. The steam lines routed along South Capitol Street are
aging and in need of replacement. Leaks have started to develop. This
project will replace these steam lines. During the construction of the
CVC, this is the only steam line capable of serving the Capitol and
House Office buildings. This line must be repaired immediately, or the
possibility exists that steam service to the Capitol will have to be
shut-off in order to correct future steam leaks.
Question. Is this project driven by security considerations or is
it strictly to repair a situation that has developed?
Response. There are no security enhancements related to this
project.
VISITOR SCREENING
Mr. Moran. This building that they are building for the
Capitol Police, the off-site delivery and screening project,
that is the one you told us about on the south piece of the
lawn there?
Mr. Hantman. This is for the visitors coming into the
Capitol.
Mr. Moran. And the cost of that?
Mr. Hantman. Do we have a number on that, Joe?
We can get back to you.
Mr. Moran. I think it would be interesting to get the cost
of that. We see it being built every day.
The Temporary Screening Facility, located on the south lawn, is
comprised of many elements:
Main structure being built just south of the Capitol's
terrace is approximately $800,000 (which includes site work,
foundations and utilities);
Ramps needed on the terrace for ADA compliance = $300,000;
Kiosk for visitors at First St. S.W. = $100,000;
Five mobile carts to transport people with disabilities or
those who cannot walk the hill = $65,000.
SECURITY EQUIPMENT
Mr. Moran. Are there going to be additional requests for
security equipment?
Mr. Hantman. They will be using standard magnetometers for
doing the inspection. I am not aware of any additional
equipment.
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT
Mr. Moran. One other thing that I was curious about, $81
million you are asking for a West Refrigeration Plant. Is that
associated with the demands created by the new Visitor Center?
Mr. Turnbull. It is a combination of both, Mr. Moran. I
think the Visitor Center sort of brings it to a highlight.
The current equipment in the old refrigeration plant, the
East Refrigeration Plant, is defunct. That refrigerant we use
is R-12. It is an ozone depleting substance, and is no longer
made. We need to replace that to get more efficient equipment
to be able to serve the needs of the Capitol complex.
We are estimating that when the CVC comes on-line that is a
specific need--if we don't have the new power plant, we would
be approximately 13,000 tons short of chilling to be able to
serve the needs of the complex.
Mr. Hantman. The equipment in the east chiller plant is
something like 50 years old. Half of it is not operable
anymore. We are pirating parts from those that are not operable
to keep the ones that are operable going.
[The following questions from Mr. Moran were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT
Question. In the fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, I understand
that you have requested several new construction projects. Please tell
me about the $81 million requested for the West Refrigeration Plant?
Response. The Capitol Power Plant serves the heating and cooling
requirements of the Capitol Complex. The chilled water generation
capacity is split between the East Refrigeration Plant and the West
Refrigeration Plant. The firm capacity of chilled water generation is
currently in a critical shortfall. The East Refrigeration Plant, while
still in operation, can no longer reliably serve chilled water to the
Capitol Complex. Maintenance cannot be accomplished due to
unavailability of parts. The equipment in the East Refrigeration Plant
uses R-12, an ozone depleting substance, which is currently under
restrictions by the EPA. Due to the age of the equipment (45+ years)
the operating efficiency is extremely low. The West Refrigeration Plant
has a useful life of 10-15 years; however, the capacity of the West
Refrigeration Plant cannot meet the known and anticipated load growth
of the campus.
In an effort to address the immediate need for capital improvements
at the Capitol Power Plant, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
commissioned a Comprehensive Utility Master Plan in November 1999 which
was completed in July 2000. The objective of the utility master plan
was to determine the most optimum and reliable approach to provide
utility service to the United States Capitol and legislative group of
buildings over the next 25-year period. The results of this Master Plan
clearly indicated that the chilled water generating capacity of the
Capitol Power Plant is approaching a critical shortfall and must be
addressed immediately.
An economic analysis included in the Master Plan indicated that the
most cost-effective solution to reliably serve the Capitol Complex's
cooling requirements over the next 25 years was to expand the existing
West Refrigeration Plant. This expansion would allow the phased
installation of approximately 30,000 tons of refrigeration equipment to
the Capitol Power Plant.
As part of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project,
architectural, landscape and security improvements are also being made
to the Power Plant grounds.
Question. How much of the cost of this project is associated with
the increased capacity necessary to support the Capitol Visitors'
Center?
Response. The cooling load for the Capitol Complex increases
annually. This load escalation is a function of new buildings being
added to the cooling loop, and renovation of existing buildings. The
West Refrigeration Plant Expansion would be required with or without
the construction of the CVC. The CVC will amplify the immediate need
for chilled water upgrades to the central system, but does not change
the long-term requirements of the chilled water system.
BOTANIC GARDEN OUTDOOR BEAUTIFICATION
Mr. Moran. Lastly, what are you going to do about the junk
yard in front of the Botanic Garden? Are you ever going to
restore it?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Moran, we have had for awhile 100 percent
construction documents ready to go out to bid. There is a
501(c)(3) that has been raising private funds to do the
National Garden directly adjacent to the Botanic Garden. As
soon as they transfer funds to us, so we don't have an
antideficiency, we will go out to bid and will be under
construction.
We can do that shortly. It is a question of when they get
their dollars together and transfer to us, so that we can, in
fact, begin construction. That has been a frustration in terms
of not being able to fully utilize that site.
But you are absolutely right. We need to do a better job.
We are going to get our landscape folks out here to mow it and
clean it up.
Mr. Moran. So this wasn't unreasonable to suggest that this
chain-link fenced area, that looks like somebody's junk yard,
is inappropriate in front of the Nation's Capitol?
Mr. Hantman. We were hoping we would have been under
construction quite awhile ago.
Mr. Moran. How much is this going to cost us?
Mr. Hantman. This is a $14.5 million project. And these are
all privately raised funds. So with this 501(c)(3) raising the
funding, as soon as they get the money in their hand and
transfer to us, we will go out to bid and begin construction.
Ms. Kaptur. Will the gentleman yield on that just for a
moment? What is the 501(c)(3)? Is that the State garden clubs,
or which group is that, please?
Mr. Hantman. The National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden,
and that was set up by the Congress to allow them to raise
funding. Teresa Heinz is the Chair of that right now, and there
has been a whole board of directors that has been set up.
National garden clubs are involved, key people throughout the
country are involved.
Mr. Moran. I understand there is $16.5 million authorized
for the trust fund, but reassure me that if these folks are not
successful in their fund-raising, we are not going to leave it
there indefinitely until they raise the money themselves.
It has to be fixed. I am sure it will be--okay. I won't
hold you up any longer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following question from Chairman Taylor was submitted
to be answered for the record:]
BOTANIC GARDEN
A laborer/motor vehicle operator position is requested who will be
assigned duties such as raking, snow removal and custodial duties
including maintenance of the National Garden.
Question. Should this not be a shared cost between the BG
appropriation and the National Garden trust?
Response. The National Fund has been charged with raising the funds
to build the National Garden. Oversight of the garden's construction
will be done by the AOC. Once the National Garden is completed it
becomes a part of the U.S. Botanic Garden and will be cared for by BG/
AOC employees. This additional Laborer/Motor Vehicle Operator is one
person added to the BG staff to serve in support of this garden
expansion. Once the National Garden has been built the Fund's
additional fund-raising efforts will support public programming at the
USBG.
AOC MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Mr. Taylor. You have some major management challenges that
you are facing. What are the top three major challenges you are
facing and how do you plan on addressing them given all the
things we have talked about here?
Mr. Hantman. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I fully echo
your up-front comments talking about GAO and the relationship.
We welcome their input and welcome their ability to take a look
at our operation and give us the type of perspective that they
have on approving--reviewing what we are doing.
I think their report was basically a fair one, and it was
balanced. And they certainly pointed out the need for strategic
planning, for performance measures and basically making sure
that people throughout the agency have this commitment to
change and to improvement in services.
We have had a group that is actively working to move our
strategic planning process forward, and our focus includes a
number of strategic requirements that will be part of the plan.
This will include measures for results, organizational business
plans, linkages to individual performance, customer assessment,
and input. All of these things need to be looked at and
incorporated, and we look forward to working with GAO on that.
I also, Mr. Chairman, see the need for additional
organizational changes. We have been actively studying a number
of alternatives that have as a goal improving customer service
delivery, project management, managerial span of control, staff
accountability; and this effort, in conjunction with a
significant number of management changes that have occurred
this past year, will help to improve our overall organization.
As you know, we have made significant changes in terms of
bringing on a Chief Financial Officer for the first time in the
history of this agency, a new Accounting Officer, a new Budget
Officer. We have reinforced the fire and life safety team to a
great extent and we are having good results on that, strategic
planning, project planning; all of these people we have begun
to bring on so we can respond to the types of needs and
directives that GAO is pointing out, and we look forward to
continuing to build in a very positive mode.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Wamp, do you have any questions?
Mr. Hoyer.
[The following questions from Chairman Taylor were
submitted to be answered for the record:]
Rebuilding the Foundation of the Agency
Question. You state that you are proud of what has been
accomplished so far in rebuilding the foundation of the agency.
What are those accomplishments?
Response. I am proud of what the AOC has accomplished in the last
year, as we have been aggressively and successfully working to bring
our little city here on Capitol Hill into the 21st Century with respect
to many types of projects. Many of these projects are in the realm of
Fire Safety--from replacing revolving doors with code compliant
swinging doors for safe egress, to installing alarm and sprinkler
systems for fire detection and suppression in all of our office
buildings, to upgrading elevators, etc. Fire Safety has been and still
is a priority and we have responded with over eighty-five significant
projects campus wide.
Worker safety, has also been a priority and we have continued to
build our Occupational Safety staff, put policies and procedures into
place, provided more than 16,000 hours of training, and made
unannounced visits to shops and work-sites to inspect for safety, and
to ensure proper use of protective equipment. Although we still have a
lot left to do, OSHA statistics show that we have reduced the injury
rate by 38% in one year. Current statistics indicate that this downward
trend is continuing this year as well.
With respect towards major projects, I am proud about the fully
renovated and upgraded Cannon Garage, which was completed on schedule
and came in under budget in correcting structural problems and life
safety deficiencies. As well as the relocation of the House Page Dorm
from the O'Neill Building to a fully renovated and rebuilt 501 First
Street, was completed on time, and to great user satisfaction,
providing a quality dormitory for the Pages, in a code compliant
facility.
On an annual basis the AOC/HOB Staff completes approximately 65,000
work orders, in addition to performing preventative maintenance for all
building systems, and last year completed or managed over 30 projects,
about 10 involving Committee Hearing Room improvements, about 10
involving Life Safety/Security and three involving elevators and
escalators.
Over the past few years this agency has been going through a great
deal of change, some of which was acknowledged by the GAO preliminary
findings (we have revamped the Human Resource Program, have implemented
several planned phases of FMS, hired a CFO, new Budget Officer and
Accounting Officer that are revamping our approach to budget planning
and execution, have implemented a best practices approach to assist in
construction management, have made tremendous strides in reducing
employee on-the-job injuries, actively working on completing an Agency
Strategic Plan, and we are adding the finishing touches to a senior
management performance management system. I am pleased to report that
the budget execution, purchasing, accounts payable, disbursement, and
accounts receivable modules of the Financial Management Systems (FMS)
went live this month. The Fixed Asset module will be up and running
this October. All of this builds on the standard General Ledger module
that we implemented in September, 2000, and gives us the foundation for
an FMS system that is a potential model for the Legislative Branch
Financial Managers Council.
Question. What else needs to be addressed?
Response. Our challenge is to effectively manage the change efforts
we already have underway, to fold into this effort additional
initiatives as recommended by GAO, and continue to provide the broad
range of other services we provide to the Congress. The opportunity
this provides to us is validation to our management team that we are on
the right track on a number of initiatives, and that in partnership
with GAO we have the opportunity to further stimulate organizational
change through their assistance and by incorporating a number of very
good recommendations. With their input and assistance we can continue
to advance management, organizational and cultural change within the
AOC.
FT. MEADE STORAGE FACILITY
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Zach, listen to this because you would be interested. In
1993, as you know, Congress provided $3.2 million for a remote
storage facility, known as Module 1, for the Library of
Congress. It was 1993, Zach. Not a very big project, $3.2
million. It is not occupied to this very day. And it is going
to cost us additional monies.
Tell me the status of that, when the Library of Congress is
going to be in; and mention also what Module 2 and Module 3's
schedule is, please.
Mr. Turnbull. That building is--should be occupied this
year. We are working with the Library. There are some
outstanding contractual issues that we have to finish up with
the contractor, but in working with the Library to implement
their program, we are looking to complete that work. And
working with their installation program--they have boxes that
are necessary, that are used to fill the structure. We are
working with them, and they will be in that building this year.
Mr. Hoyer. I represent the Patuxent River Naval Air
Station. And we have put over $350 million of capital
improvements in 10 years. They are all operating and doing very
well. We had very, very few contract disputes.
Turner did a lot of the work. I don't know whether Clark
did any of the work there or not.
But Mr. Wamp's point is a good point. On both sides, as all
of you know, there is a concern about getting projects done on
time without all these contract disputes. Frankly, they occur
so frequently on so many different projects, it can't be that
the contractors are always wrong. There has got to be some
endemic, systemic, underlying problem, because----
Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Hoyer, I just need to point out, on this
particular project with this contractor, we are no longer
working with just the contractor, we are working with his
bonding company. He is in very difficult trouble.
Mr. Hoyer. I don't assert there is anything wrong with what
we have done, other than we appropriated this money in 1993. It
was quite some time ago, a $3.2 million project.
Mr. Turnbull. We have entered into an agreement with the
Corps of Engineers to help us do construction management and
planning, since they are situated at the base; and we think
this is a positive step to help rectify and control some of the
issues that are going on out there.
[The following questions from Chairman Taylor were
submitted to be answered for the record:]
Fort Meade Storage Facility
The Fort Meade storage facility was originally presented to this
Committee in fiscal year 1989 as a secondary book storage facility for
the Library of Congress. At that time, the Library proposed to lease
and outfit a remote book storage building. That request was denied and
for the next three years the issue was reviewed and evaluated resulting
in an appropriation, in FY 1993, of $3.2 million dollars for an ``off
Capitol Hill storage facility.'' The AOC prepared a time schedule for
this facility, which was to begin April 1, 1994, and occupancy to take
place in June 1996. As of today we have not moved into this facility.
In fact, during fiscal year 2003 it was planned that the Library would
be moving into the third module.
Question. Can you tell us what went wrong?
Response. There are many issues that have caused delay with the
design and construction of this project. During the program and design
phases, the standards, codes, and criteria for these unique facilities
were under dynamic changes. Prior to starting the design process in
1996 the Library of Congress spent approximately three years
determining the need for a robotic or manual book storage system. These
factors led to difficult and challenging design documents and the on-
going change continued to burden the construction phase. The primary
challenges in the design documents were the highly sophisticated and
unique mechanical temperature and humidity control systems as well as
the extensive fire protection code issues on this type of facility. The
sophisticated temperature and humidity control systems were so
challenging that the first mechanical design subcontractor was
dismissed from the project for his inability to properly design the
system.
A. The most significant issues that plagued the construction
schedule was a challenging set of design documents which led to the
issuance of 38 change orders. These change orders primarily resulted
from ``Requests for Information (RFI's)'' from the general contractor
because the design documents were missing information and were poorly
coordinated. Identifying, engineering and executing the changes
contributed to the delay in project completion.
B. It took the low bid contractor over eight (8) months to submit
an approvable set of shop drawings for the highly sophisticated
mechanical humidity control unit for the storage module and over ten
(10) months to fabricate the unit.
C. Due to a dynamic and changing industry with respect the
development of an accepted level of fire protection for high-density
archival storage facilities, the design of the protection system in the
storage module was never finalized during the design phase. The code
requirements the AOC was directed to follow (NFPA-13) and the program
demands for storage volume were incompatible. One or the other could
not be met. This problem, unresolved in design, plagued the
construction phase. No determination as to the acceptable level of
property loss had been defined which would have unknotted this dilemma.
D. Finally, the contractor lost two project managers, a scheduler
and his on-site superintendent during the course of construction which
caused considerable delays and a loss of focus to complete the project.
These major delays as well as numerous smaller issues have caused this
project to fall significantly behind schedule.
Question. Has there been a breakdown in communication between AOC
and the contractor, or between the AOC and the Library that caused this
delay?
Response. There has not been a breakdown in communication between
the AOC and the contractor. We understand that the contractor
experienced financial difficulties, which resulted in his bonding
company becoming involved in the project. These financial difficulties
appear to have impacted his subcontractors to various extents in
completing their work. Similarly, there has not been a breakdown
communication between the AOC and LOC. Our project teams have met
regularly through the design and construction process to ensure open
communication.
Question. Were there design changes made as the project proceeded
along?
Response. Yes, there were several design changes made during the
construction phase. Approximately 38 change orders were processed on
this contract. Additionally, there were several field issues that were
resolved short of becoming change orders. These issues further
distracted the efforts of the contractor and the AOC.
Question. Who requested those changes?
Response. The contractor through the RFI (Request for Information)
process requested the majority of the changes. The AOC and the LOC made
no requests for any changes. The majority of the changes stemmed from
poorly coordinated design documents.
Question. Did your office approve the changes?
Response. The majority of the 38 change orders that were issued on
this contract addressed the corrections to the contract document
errors/conflicts/omissions and/or construction means and all were
approved by this office.
Question. So, if your office approved the changes why is there a
problem with the completion of the project?
Response. The problem with the completion of the project did not
stem from the approval of the change orders issued on the contract. The
major contributing factors for the construction delays were the
identifying, engineering and executing the changes as stated in the
response to Question #1.
Question. Do you currently have adequate funding to bring this
project to closure?
Response. There are several key decisions, which remain to be made
on this project which could impact funding. Until these decisions are
made and the final negotiations are complete with the contractor, we
can not accurately predict the funding needs. While the facility is
safe from a life safety perspective, the facility does not meet
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 231C with respect to
property protection code. Meeting this code at this point would require
significant funding and many months to execute.
We have developed a risk based assessment methodology to aid the
decision making process on an acceptable property loss. AOC staff and
Library officials have reviewed this data and methodology in several
recent meetings. I'm confident that a final decision will be reached
regarding acceptable levels of risk for the books planned to be stored
in Module 1 within the coming weeks. This decision will be made in
light of the relative safety of the overall facilities for the Library
of Congress, the time and expense of crating a facility which poses no
or minimal risk to property and the specific books planned for storage
in Module 1 which may fairly easily be replaced if necessary.
Question. What is your current estimate of when we will take
possession of the facility?
Response. We are currently commissioning major building systems and
expect to close out the contract in the next few weeks. Our in-house
forces will accommodate all required non-contract work, which we expect
to complete in July. Should our risk-based assessment for property loss
indicate that the facility is acceptable, occupancy can occur in the
July/August time frame. Should the property loss assessment indicate
that full compliance with NFPA 231C is required, several additional
months of design and construction will be required.
AGENCY CAPABILITIES
Mr. Hoyer. Let me follow up on the chairman's question.
You run a very large agency, 2,000 employees, thereabouts,
very significant budget. You are now undertaking some very
large construction projects. Your problems have been compounded
and made much more difficult by the security challenges that
the Capitol confronts.
Any organization's capacity to take on responsibilities is
finite. Have we stretched your agency too far?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Hoyer, it is an excellent question.
What Mike Turnbull just started to allude to is the fact
that we need to change the way we are doing business. So where
he is talking about Fort Meade bringing in the Corps of
Engineers essentially to be our construction managers, to do
design, build for us and work through our Project Manager with
the Library to determine needs for Modules 2, 3 and 4.
And we have a program at the Library, right, for Module 2
as soon as they sign off on that. The Corps of Engineers will
be able to start moving ahead with Module 2 and planning 3 and
4.
Mr. Hoyer. I asked you a general question, and I appreciate
that--let me ask you on the specific. What if we transfer the
responsibility to get this project done to the Library itself,
which has the most immediate interest in getting this done?
Mr. Turnbull. Actually, that discussion has been talked
about with the Library, and the Associate Librarian has said
that that is not their core mission and that they would like
the Architect of the Capitol to be on board and sitting with
them.
Mr. Hoyer. Now the Architect.
Mr. Hantman. So the Fort Meade issue of bringing on the
Corps is one of the other issues, for all of our major
projects, Mr. Hoyer; and as I indicated earlier, what we are
doing now is we are bringing on other entities to do the day-
to-day construction management under our fiduciary control.
So where we talk about the Capitol Visitor Center--for
instance, we have Gilbane Construction that has been brought
on, a nationally recognized construction management firm. We
also have a dedicated team that was hired and paid for through
that project as opposed to tapping the skills and the time of
our core staff.
Where we talk about the Supreme Court, the same thing will
be done. We have a construction manager coming on under a
dedicated project management team to work on that, not our core
staff.
The same issue in terms of projects we are working on. We
have brought on NAVFAC, the Naval facilities people, who did a
great job down at South Capitol Street. And they are currently
working on 67 K Street for the Capitol Police, and we foresee
using them on any other issues that the Capitol Police get
done, whether it is an off-site inspection station, whether it
is headquarters types of facilities.
So basically what I am saying, Mr. Hoyer, is, we do
recognize that we are stretched thin and that is why we are
tapping into the NAVFAC, the Corps of Engineers, outside
construction management firms, so they can essentially do the
day-to-day report back to us, so we can essentially manage the
projects much more effectively.
This is unprecedented in terms of the volume of work that
we have. This agency has never had this kind of volume, and we
are trying to keep our arms around that and make sure we make
the internal changes to handle these projects more efficiently.
[The following questions from Mr. Hoyer were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Question. With respect to the General Accounting Office (GAO)
Management Review, which Congress mandated last year, and which is now
underway, GAO has reported preliminarily that the AOC has already
demonstrated a ``Commitment to Change.'' As you work to change your
organization, what do you see as your biggest challenge? Your biggest
opportunity? What aspect of your organization would you most like to
change?
Response. Over the past few years this agency has been going
through a great deal of change, some of which was acknowledged by the
GAO preliminary findings (we have revamped the Human Resource Program,
have implemented several planned phases of FMS, hired a CFO, new Budget
Officer and Accounting Officer that are revamping our approach to
budget planning and execution, have implemented a best practices
approach to assist in construction management, have made tremendous
strides in reducing employee on-the-job injuries, actively working on
completing an Agency Strategic Plan, and we are adding the finishing
touches to a senior management performance management system.
Our challenge is to effectively manage the change efforts we
already have underway, to fold into this effort additional initiatives
as recommended by GAO, and continue to provide the broad range of other
services we provide the Congress. The opportunity this provides to us
is validation to our management team that we are on the right track on
a number of initiatives, and that in partnership with GAO we have the
opportunity to further stimulate organizational change through their
assistance and by incorporating a number of very good recommendations.
With their input and assistance we can continue to advance management,
organizational and cultural change within the AOC.
Question. Your total number of injuries fell from 395 in fiscal
year 2000 to 306 in fiscal year 2001, a decline of 22.5%. Your report
says you are working on a Five Year Safety Master Plan, ``that will be
used as a road map for (your) safety program.'' Is that mapping effort
on track so progress can continue?
Response. The 5 year safety master plan developed last year was a
very high level plan designed to comply with OSHA as mandated by the
Congressional Accountability Act and to reduce the number of injuries.
I am happy to report that we are on track with these high level
initiatives and our injuries in Fiscal Year 2002 show a continued
decrease from last year's injury rate (11.02, a 38 percent decrease
from Fiscal Year 2000 rate of 17.9 per 100 employees).
Last year our emphasis was on hiring needed safety staff, providing
personal protective equipment to all employees, raising safety
awareness, promoting safe work practices, and developing safety
programs targeted at the most potentially hazardous work.
This year, our emphasis has expanded to include improving our
injury reporting process, analyzing and understanding our injuries,
developing measures to prevent injuries, developing a self inspection
process, performing job hazard analyses, implementing the approved
safety programs, and ensuring safety roles, responsibilities, and
expectations are clearly communicated across the workforce.
In these efforts, we are receiving technical assistance from the
Office of Compliance, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Public Health Service, the General Administration
Office, and DuPont Safety Services.
I have set a Fiscal Year 2002 goal of 9.9 injuries per 100
employees, a 10 percent decrease from our Fiscal Year 2001 rate (11.02
injuries per 100 employees). I am confident that with the steps we are
taking and the help we are receiving, we will exceed this goal and
continue toward our ultimate goal of preventing all avoidable injuries
and illnesses.
SOUTH CAPITOL STREET ENTRANCE
Mr. Hoyer. What I think Mr. Wamp and the Chairman of the
committee are saying is, you need to be very candid and hard-
nosed with us in saying, there are things we can do, we can't
do, with the resources that we have.
Mr. Chairman, let me go to one additional matters. I would
like to show the members of the committee two pictures. I have
others, but I want to show you those two. I am involved in a
project that I think would be the project that I would most
like to be associated with at the end of my service in
Congress.
These pictures depict the South Capitol Street entrance to
the Capitol of the United States. Jim Moran mentioned the
problem that we have at the front of the Botanic Garden. This
depicts what we constructed as one enters the Capitol, as every
major foreign dignitary enters via this street.
They land at Andrews Air Force Base, and they come down
Suitland Parkway and come across the South Capitol Street
Bridge, and this is the entrance that they see.
And I want to make my point even more dramatic. If you look
at almost every city on the Atlantic Coast you will find the
southeast part of that city is either industrial or where poor
people live. Why is that the case? Because in our Northeast
cities the high ground is in the northwest. The rivers flow
downhill, sewage flows downhill. So when cities were developed,
it was the lower part of the cities that became the industrial
or poor areas. The land was less expensive. As a result, what
we have done with the Southeast is, very badly, to spoil it.
Every city in America is reclaiming its waterways. The
Mayor of Washington has a major project called the Anacostia
Waterfront Initiative. It is going to be like the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation. It will transform the face of
this city, and will be the city's major project in coming
years.
The reason I bring this up at this point in time, Mr.
Chairman, is that this committee needs to be involved in this.
This will be a major accomplishment for every Member of
Congress, where we are going to change the Anacostia waterfront
into what will be one of the most visited sites--other than the
Capitol and the monuments in the city. There will be shops and
billions of dollars spent to revitalize this area of the city.
All the committees are going to be involved in it, and it is
going to take a quarter of a century to get this done.
I wanted to do this at this point in time.
And, Alan, with that prefatory comment, would you briefly
explain what is a major eyesore now, as one enters that we are
responsible for, the Power Plant.
In Frederick, Maryland, there is a project where they are
lowering the smoke stacks from 178 down to 123 to try to
diminish citizen opposition to a Duke Power Company power-
generation facility.
Obviously, the relevance is, one of the major things is the
stacks that we have there at the Power Plant. We have to
straighten out the bridge, and we have to widen the boulevard.
I am going to show you this area from the Capitol to the
Anacostia River; interestingly, that length of property is
about the length between the Champs Elysees and the Eiffel
Tower.
We can make this, with all of us working together, an
extraordinarily beautiful, aesthetic, powerful entrance to the
world's greatest symbol of democracy.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
Mr. Hoyer. Alan, tell us briefly about the Power Plant. Mr.
Chairman, I would like the opportunity at some point in time to
meet with the committee and brief you on what we have done so
far and what we need to do because the Capitol and our work
here will make a major impact on this project. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman for your tolerance.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. As you know, I recently
met with the Federal city council and Andy Altman of the D.C.
planning group, Terry Goldin and the Anacostia Waterfront
folks. I am impressed with their plans and they are doable. I
think your analogy to the Pennsylvania Avenue effort is a good
one and I think we need to plan long term to make that happen.
One of the things that we have incorporated into the
request for the $81 million for the chiller refrigeration
plant, our plant is a very heavy, brutal type of structure. It
really does not relate well to South Capitol, in which it sits,
or the neighborhood in which it sits. As we propose to expand
our west chiller plant, we have included in our budget dollars
to be able to integrate the existing with the new in a way that
breaks down the scale both on South Capitol Street and in the
community, and also the desire be able to set it back from
South Capitol, plant trees, plant trees on the other sides of
the properties to be better neighbors both to the immediate
area as well as those who visit the Capitol coming in from the
southern end.
Since we last talked, Mr. Hoyer, we have taken a look at
the ability for us to do a study to either lower the stacks, to
soften them, the big house that is between the stacks that
takes the particulate matter out of the air stream. The
preliminary numbers that we have in, we could begin to do a
study for the range of 125- to $150,000 to take a look at the
height of the stack, the emission levels, and what we can do to
minimize the physical presence and objectionableness of those
taller elements of a power plant.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for giving me the time.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lewis.
[The following questions from Chairman Taylor were
submitted to be answered for the record:]
Capitol Power Plant
You currently receive $4.4 million annually as a reimbursement for
steam and chilled water provided to non-Congressional entities.
Question. What are your estimates of the increased reimbursement
resulting from the West Refrigeration Plant expansion project?
Response. We are not estimating any increase in the reimbursement
rate at this time. We anticipate that normal cost escalation and the
volatile fuel and power markets as well as other capital projects will
impact our reimbursable requests.
You have requested $81.8 million for the West Refrigeration plant
expansion. The total cost of this project is estimated at $120 million.
Question. Will we realize any return on investment?
Response. A Utility Master Plan was completed in July 2000 which
evaluated various options for serving the long-term utility needs of
the Capitol Complex. This Master Plan determined that the best option
when evaluating life cycle cost was to expand the West Refrigeration
Plant.
By expanding the West Refrigeration Plant, we will see a savings of
over $4.5 million in annual operating expenses for the plant. Most of
the savings will be electric; however, there are also maintenance
savings associated with this project. Using the project estimate of
$81.8 million, the project will have a simple payback of 18 years.
Similar payback is expected for out year budget request for equipment
installations.
Question. What are your estimates of potential savings?
Response. The chilled water generation and distribution systems
that are being installed as part of the West Refrigeration Plant
Expansion are more efficient that the existing systems at the Capitol
Power Plant. The new system is expected to reduce operating and
maintenance expenses by over $4,500,000 per year. The following
outlines the major operational benefits and the predicted operating
savings (estimates are based on projected electric cost of which
sensitivity analysis have been completed).
Installation of a ``free cooling'' system (a heat exchange system
designed to limit mechanical refrigeration requirements during reduced
wet bulb conditions)--$530,000 per year installation of a new efficient
distribution pumping system--$550,000 per year installation of turbine
driven chillers--$2,500,000 per year; reduction in maintenance costs--
$270,000 per year; installation of more efficient chillers--$600,000
per year.
Question. Are we in danger of not meeting our cooling requirements?
Response. Yes--The projected cooling load for the Capitol Complex
including the CVC is 31,000 tons. Our reliable plant capacity in 2005
will be 18,000 tons if the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project
is not on-line in early 2005--a deficiency of 13,000 tons. In response
to this deficiency, we would be forced to rent costly temporary
chillers to supplement the cooling load, and would likely have to start
a chilled water curtailment program during peak conditions, which we
believe is an unacceptable solution.
Question. If this project is delayed for just one year what effect
will it have on continued operations?
Response. Due to the age and condition of the equipment currently
located in the East Refrigeration Plant, the equipment can no longer
reliably serve the cooling requirements of the Capitol Complex. If the
project were not funded, temporary chillers would be required in 2005.
These chillers are costly, operate inefficiently, and would be
installed in the Capitol Power Plant parking lot, which would have
community impact due to unacceptable noise levels. It is questionable
if sufficient temporary chiller capacity could be installed, thus
potentially requiring a chilled water curtailment program be
established on hot summer days.
south capitol street steam line and constitution avenue tunnel
You need $11 million to repair the South Capitol Street steam line
and $8.5 million dollars for the Constitution Avenue tunnel.
Question. What is the urgency of these projects?
Response. The $8.5 million request for the Constitution Avenue
tunnel is to correct structural deficiencies in the tunnel. The tunnel
roof is spauling and large chunks of concrete are falling to the floor
causing hazardous worker conditions. This was cited in the Office of
Compliance safety report and a corresponding citation was issued.
The $11 million request for the South Capitol Street steam line is
to replace the existing steam lines serving the Capitol, the House
Office buildings, and the Botanic Gardens. These lines, originally
installed in 1932, are currently leaking and in need of replacement.
Timing is critical. During the construction of the CVC, the South
Capitol stream lines will be the only lines providing service to the
Capitol. If a major leak in these lines were to occur during
construction of the CVC, heating service to the Capitol would have to
be discontinued until the line could be repaired.
Question. Are these life and safety issues?
Response. Yes--The Capitol Power Plant was issued a citation by the
Office of Compliance in December 2000 to repair the spauling concrete
in the Constitution Avenue tunnel. Portions of the tunnel roof are
falling and could injure personnel working in the tunnel. South Capitol
Street Line has not been issued a citation, however manholes on the
line have been reconstructed to repair roof collapses in the structure.
Question. Are these the only steam lines coming from the power
plant?
Response. No--The basic utility distribution is as follows: The
East Line is run from the Power Plant under North Carolina Ave to 2nd
Street to Constitution Ave West then under 1st Street to Postal Square.
Steam lines are run from 2nd Street to the Capitol between the Library
of Congress and the Supreme Court. The West line runs from the Power
Plant under South Capitol Street to the Capitol. The Capitol Complex is
served from these two main distribution lines from the CPP. Branch
lines are taken from the main distribution to serve the heating
requirements of the Capitol Complex. When the Construction of the CVC
begins the Capitol will only be fed from the South Capitol Street Steam
line and will have no redundancy.
Question. If we have other lines that we must be concerned with,
what are your estimates of when these lines will need to be repaired?
Response. A study was completed addressing the structural condition
of the tunnels and corresponding budget requests have been made to
address the deficiencies. The study indicated the structural condition
of the tunnel was generally sound and has at least a 15-year life.
Other recommendations to make immediate repairs and replace the
Constitution Ave Tunnel roof have been or are in the process of being
implemented.
A budget request to study the long term requirements of tunnel
system is in the 5 year Capitol plan which will address the long term
needs of the distribution system capacity and structural integrity of
the tunnel system. The study will provide recommendations for a course
of action, timeline of repair if necessary and cost estimates.
AGENCY RESTRUCTURING
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hantman, if I
recall correctly, you voluntarily applied for this job, did you
not?
Mr. Hantman. At that point, nobody could have described it
to me, Mr. Lewis, what the job was all about. No doubt about
it.
Mr. Hoyer. I would like to say, Jerry, he is a lot like us.
Mr. Lewis. I always say nobody holds a gun to our head. It
is a pleasure to be with you, nonetheless. I was just reading
comments regarding your restructuring plans with some interest.
And indeed, it is commendable to try to reorganize a very thin
agency, rethink the way we use our resources, and re-examine
how we can do a better job. With that in mind, and with your
objective of having the AOC be a model Federal agency--you talk
about a contract with the Navy. I think you alluded to that
briefly in connection with other things a while ago. I have an
interest in the military's ability to help people be more
efficient and restructure, et cetera.
Would you share with me some thoughts, some illustrations
and experiences with the Navy and what they have to offer?
Mr. Hantman. NAVFAC specifically, we took a tour down with
Mr. Boudrieu at the Navy Yard and we took a look at some of the
wonderful work they have done taking old buildings,
rehabilitating them.
Mr. Lewis. That is here in D.C.?
Mr. Hantman. The Navy Yard here, yes. They have an ability
to do a soup-to-nuts job from programming to design. And not
necessarily design internally, but bringing on outside firms to
work with them, much as we do, and then essentially oversee the
construction, let the contracts move forward with that.
And we look forward to building on officially our initial
piece of work that we are working with them on, which is again
essentially the vehicle maintenance facility for the Capitol
Police. So they are, in effect, doing the design work and they
will be doing the construction oversight for that with us,
still having fiduciary responsibility for that, and with the
master plan for the Capitol Police take a look at their long-
term needs with respect to offsite inspection of major vehicles
before they come on to our campus grounds.
With respect to their growth and potential headquarters
issues, we look forward to working with NAVFAC at the outset of
those projects to continue having them do that and look for
other opportunities to work with them, much as we are planning
to work with the Corps of Engineers at Fort Meade.
Mr. Lewis. That is very interesting commentary. I was not
aware that the Navy was the driver in terms of administering
and handling some of those changes. I am somewhat familiar and
impressed with what is being done there. I was giving credit to
other people.
AREAS AROUND THE CAPITOL
With respect to Mr. Hoyer's questions regarding Southeast
D.C., there are those who look at, having 8th Street going
north from the Navy Yard became like a Georgetown adjacent to
the Capitol. Are we involved in that? Is your office involved
in that thinking?
Mr. Hantman. I have just been invited to join the Federal
city council as an ex-officio member. I have not been involved
in the planning. But the meeting that we had with the people
from the District, with Terry Goldin of the Federal city
council was really very impressive. Because of the improvements
at the Navy Yard and the contractors that have to serve the
Navy Yard having to be in close proximity to it, that entire
sector of the city is beginning to boom. Property values are
rising. The issues of other private sector dollars being
invested in this is real.
So cleaning up the Anacostia River and beginning to move
northwards towards the Capitol is pretty, I think, much what
Congressman Hoyer is talking about. And I really think that is
an wonderful opportunity. It is going to happen and we need to
help that happen.
Mr. Hoyer. Jerry, essentially from RFK Stadium around to
Maine Avenue is what this plan would envision. And one of the
exciting things that you saw in The Washington Post a few days
ago is what the committee bidding for the Olympics in 2012 has
in mind for the RFK Stadium area and then coming down towards
the Navy Yard.
Mr. Lewis. I was at one time involved in a small little
subcommittee that has to do with VA-HUD, and EDI grants are a
part of that activity. During that time I was involved
specifically in trying to encourage funding for the 8th Street
project. That project could do a lot to attract people to
Capitol Hill as they are attracted to Georgetown. I am
intrigued by it. I think this committee ought to play a role
above and beyond private dollars. I think we ought to play a
real role in terms of real money assisting with moving that
forward. I wanted you to know about my interest. There are ways
that we could help and we should be helping.
Mr. Hantman. Whatever role I can play as interface between
the community and us, I would welcome that opportunity to do
that.
VISITOR CENTER SPACE
Mr. Lewis. Can you tell me, if the Chairman would allow me
to go back just a moment to the Visitor Center, both about the
Visitor Center and this project that Steny is talking about
that has been around ever since I have been in Congress? I am
interested in knowing if there are remaining any significant
issues between the two bodies, the Senate and the House,
relative to the use of that space when it is eventually
developed and how you are going about--settling or at least
helping us think through some of those contests.
Mr. Hantman. The core issue of the function of the Visitors
Center, which is dead center on access with the Capitol dome,
there are no open issues between the House and the Senate on
that.
Mr. Lewis. There are none?
Mr. Hantman. The issue of the expansion space for the House
and the expansion space for the Senate, roughly 80,000 or so
square feet for each body, is totally within each body's
control in terms of how they use it and grow into it over time
and what functions they want to use. Those are the major issues
which are individual to the bodies.
I think one of the things that still needs to be settled is
some of the things that we were talking about earlier in terms
of the tour routes and how the operating plant for the CVC has
not been determined yet.
VISITOR CENTER SECURITY SPACE
Mr. Lewis. Is there any ongoing discussion regarding using
those facilities as secure facilities in case of potential
disasters like the 9/11?
Mr. Hantman. First of all, there is a 450-seat auditorium
on access and it would be a joint facility which will be
essentially a SCIF type of space where briefings could be used
for the House and the Senate and mixed bodies. And there are
issues relative to each individual body in terms of what they
want to put in those expansion spaces. Security spaces are also
among the considerations that are being looked at.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SUPREME COURT PROJECT
Mr. Taylor. When you are talking about using the Navy and
the Corps of Engineers and so forth, have you thought about
giving them a specific project rather than just a variety of
tasks? Say, for instance, have you thought about giving the
Supreme Court's $100 million project to the Navy considering
the sizable effort needed for the project?
Mr. Hantman. What we have done, sir, is we have, again,
with the General Services Administration, gone out for national
selection on a construction management firm and we are just
about to award that contract to people that the Court
themselves were also involved with. So the issue of long-term
involvement, bringing outside people with expertise in to that
building, was brought again to a national bid condition and
those are being evaluated and finalized right now.
So as far as whether it is the Navy, it is Corps of
Engineers, we certainly look forward to significant
opportunities down the road, but that one basically had been
committed to with the Supreme Court.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. May I inquire of the
time? Do we have a vote here?
HOUSE BUILDINGS ROOM NUMBERING
Mr. Taylor. 6\1/2\ minutes right now. We have 3 votes.
Ms. Kaptur. We have 3 votes coming up.
I wanted to begin and say, Mr. Hantman, that I really envy
you your position being a city and regional planner myself. In
spite of all the grief you have to take, I always thought yours
was the greatest job in the world.
I wanted to ask, starting with simple questions first. The
other night, again, I became a tour guide in the Capitol in the
Rayburn Building explaining to tourists that 2300 Rayburn was
not in the same region as 300 Cannon. And I cannot tell you the
countless times I have had to help the public negotiate between
these buildings based on the way they are numbered.
Now I am sure over the history of this country there have
been 7,000 studies done on how to number the offices and if we
change the numbering, 435 Members of the House would have to
change their cards. But I must ask you, for the convenience of
the public, is there not a better way to number the floors and
offices in these buildings? It is totally confusing to the
public. These were literate people. Some teachers. There was a
senior citizen with them. They had to walk over two more
buildings. It is the craziest numbering system. It truly
represents what some people consider the Government. Who else
would have the third floor numbered 2300?
Where else have you ever gone on an elevator in a building
where it starts out with 2 when you are on the first floor?
I hope this is a simple question--to what extent have you
studied the numbering systems in Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn
Buildings, and are there any proposals that could be generated
from the Architect's Office on how to deal with the public that
wanders around until they finally find a spot through these
mazes?
Mr. Hantman. Your observations are obviously on target. And
we have been working on developing a way-finding program, a
package for internal as well as external signage which we
certainly could sit down individually, explain to you where we
are planning to go on this. We do not have the funding to
implement this yet, but the concept again is to try to solve
the type of problems that you are describing.
People can easily get lost over here. The signs grew up
over the period of years. They are not cohesive. They are not
comprehensive. They do not essentially deal with the needs of
today in terms of ADA as well. So that is what this program
would be meant to address. And we certainly would look forward
to sitting down with you, showing you what we have proposed,
and hopefully get your support to move it forward.
Ms. Kaptur. In other words, are you saying that perhaps one
could consider renumbering the offices?
Mr. Hantman. I guess it is a question of maps, kiosks,
signage.
Ms. Kaptur. You are saying you are not going to change the
numbers, you are just going to provide more maps? Am I hearing
you right?
Mr. Hantman. Basically, the program--I do not think it was
aimed to revamp the current numbering system. It was meant to
help people find the rooms and the spaces more easily.
[The following question from Ms. Kaptur was submitted to be
answered for the record:]
Elevator Signage in the Rayburn House Office Building
Question. In addition to the confusing nature of the room numbers
in the House Office Buildings, I also find that visitors are misled by
the static ``Members Only'' sign on the Rayburn elevators. These signs
are present at all times, so there are many occasions, including days
when the House is not even in session, that visitors believe they
cannot use these elevators. I believe that in all buildings, there are
electronic signs that are lit only when there is an actual vote in
progress. What can be done to correct this problem, and how long will
it take?
Response. The Rayburn Elevators are to be renovated as part of the
House Office Building Elevator Modernization Program. This program is a
multi year program designed to modernize all the elevators in the HOB
including replacement of the controls and providing electronic
displays. We are presently modernizing the elevators in the Cannon
Building with fiscal year 2002 funding. We are in the process of
developing the construction documents for the modernizing of the
Member's elevators in the Rayburn Building and trying to obtain funding
to accomplish this. The construction will be completed in fiscal year
2003 if funding is obtained. We will finish the modernization of the
Cannon Building elevators with fiscal year 2003 funding and modernize
the remainder of the Rayburn Building elevators in fiscal year 2004/
2005.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION STUDY
Ms. Kaptur. Have you ever, sir, in the records of your
office, have you ever done a study on the number of lost
tourists? Have you done a customer satisfaction study or
customer location study of what is going on around here?
Mr. Hantman. There is no doubt in my mind, Congresswoman,
that there is a need for a way-finding sign program to allow
people to find their ways more comfortably and more efficiently
around the Capitol.
Ms. Kaptur. I am not finished with my questioning, but I do
have to go up and vote.
Mr. Wamp [presiding]. We will keep the committee hearing
process going, we will not recess, and soon as the Chairman
gets back, I will go and vote. You are welcome to go with me
and continue to talk, continue your line of questioning, and
you and I will walk up. We will not miss the vote, Marcy.
Ms. Kaptur. I want to be assured that there is going to be
some type of analysis done of what happens to visitors when
they come into these buildings.
The money you are going to spend on kiosks and so forth, I
do not object to, but I do not think that that is really the
answer. I think there is a fundamental numbering problem in
these buildings, and it is extremely difficult for the public
to understand. I got quite a few laughs when I began this
little lecture here and I know you people in here have had to
direct others as well simply because the fundamental system is
not intelligible.
Mr. Lewis. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. I am very interested in your commentary about
the numbers and I think that is something to seriously
consider. But I hope that when you pursue this further, Ms.
Kaptur, you make sure they have a piece of the program to help
people like me, because if they change my room number, I will
get lost. I will not know how to find my office.
Ms. Kaptur. The design of the buildings is another
question, Mr. Chairman. You would have to change your little
cards that you give out. I have seen this so much now, and I
thought there has to be a better way to do this, even if you
called them Building A, B and C, or C, L and R.
Mr. Hantman. This is certainly something that we could
bring up with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Capitol Police board
and the tour guides as well and see what kind of
recommendations they would come up with in this area.
Ms. Kaptur. It would be a good idea to do a survey of those
that actually work in these buildings. It would not take much
and then you would get a better feel of what is happening to
the public as they get lost around here on a regular basis. I
hope that you can respond to me by letter as opposed to a
visit, and describing what is going to be done to evaluate the
numbers system based on usage.
O'NEILL BUILDING DEMOLITION
Mr. Taylor. Alan, I am going to continue with questions and
I may go back to some of the issues we have already covered, as
might other Members who come back. We are having a series of
votes that each of us has to get to.
What is the status of the demolition of the O'Neill
Building and the long-term use of that block?
Mr. Hantman. This is Frank Tiscione, our superintendent of
the House office buildings.
Mr. Tiscione. We are in the process of moving all the
occupants out of the building. We should have all the
construction that we have to do to provide occupancy for the
people that are in that building now by the end of May. We are
currently in there right now doing the HAZMAT removal on the
upper floors which are unoccupied. The contract should be
awarded in September and we will start demolition in October
and complete in January of 2003.
In the meantime, we were going to be doing a study. We have
been given $150,000 in this year's appropriation to do a study
of what we can do with that site as far as building on that
site.
BOTANIC GARDEN RENOVATION
Mr. Taylor. What was the total cost of renovating the
conservatory in the Botanic Gardens? How does that compare to
the appropriations?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the appropriation
was $33.5 million, and we are still within that appropriation.
As Mr. Turnbull indicated earlier, we are working actively with
the contractor to look at the change orders that he is
suggesting, that he is claiming, reviewing the backup material
for that, and settling each one as we can go.
Our sense of the value of the change orders that he has is
that we are within the budget. The issue, of course, of any
future claims, which has not been formally filed at this point
in time, we do not have a handle on that.
CONSTRUCTION DELAYS
Mr. Taylor. There were 391 days of delay which Clark
Construction attributes to the Architect of the Capitol. In
September 2001, Clark Construction Company provided an informal
document for settlement purposes that suggests they have a
claim in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 million on this
project. These amounts are 60 to 90 percent of the original
appropriation.
I know you are in discussions with the contractor, but more
importantly, we passed legislation to unbelievably hold the
contractor accountable to finish a contract in a reasonable
period of time. I believe where we were before is they could
not charge us more money, but they could sort of stay there
forever if they wanted. Is there anything else we need to do as
a Congress to tighten the legislation necessary for moving
ahead in these multitude of projects that we have? Are there
things that we could do to see that we are not going to be
sitting here with 10 of these type claims and discussions 10
years from now?
Mr. Hantman. One of the things that I alluded to briefly
before, Mr. Chairman, on the Capitol Visitor Center project, to
try to make sure that that does not happen, as Mr. Wamp was
indicating, is that we have learned from the Pentagon. And
again, Joe Sacco was a project manager at the Pentagon and he
brought over the concept of not only the stick, but the carrot
as well. So the incentive issue, dollars that can be earned for
good performance, for on-time performance, for quality
performance.
We have an evaluation system that has been developed and
will be part of the contracts for the Visitor Center to assure
that if the contractor wants to share in dollars that he will
not get otherwise, he is going to have to perform, he is going
to have to bring the problems to us, work with us together to
be able to solve them, as opposed to having an adversarial
relationship. We think that that certainly has worked at the
Pentagon. We have good faith that that is going to work with us
also at the Capitol Visitor Center. And this may be something
of a model. Since it is being used in other areas of the
Government, we want to explore in more detail for certainly the
major project.
CONSTRUCTION PENALTIES
Mr. Taylor. That is a carrot. What about a stick. Is there
a penalty other than the fact he just will not get a reward? Do
we need anything in that area?
Mr. Hantman. Well, we certainly have the liquidated damages
clause that is a standard part of the contract. Depending on
the nature of the project and the time frame in the project,
that may or may not be a big enough stick for the contractor.
So the question is trying to be fair on both sides.
Mr. Taylor. Well, without getting into your ability or
giving up any of your negotiation activities, obviously if this
fellow thinks he is due $30 million, which was almost the
entire project cost, and I am not maintaining that it is
anything like that, but if he thinks there were that many
changes, can we put in our contracts and tighten the
requirements to the point that it would be even more
preposterous for someone to make that kind of claim in the
future?
I do contracting, I do construction, and I know that there
is nothing but surprises, always, and there are things you have
to change and there are other things that happen causing
delays, and all the costs cannot be borne by one side. There
are opportunities. But to negotiate, as you are pointing out,
the carrot here is if I am doing construction, I should come to
you quickly, work the thing out before it festers and becomes a
multimillion dollar problem or something that could be
adjusted.
We have got probably hundreds of millions of dollars of
projects here and that is why I ask is there any other thing we
can be doing? Or are you studying that possibility?
Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, I think
we could have our general counsel take a look at some of those
clauses and work with the committee on some additional ideas to
tighten it up. And I think that is very appropriate.
I think, unfortunately, in the nature of the contracting
business, you are still going to have posturing by the other
parties, and right now it is posturing. There has been nothing
submitted. It is numbers floating out there and there is
something to substantiate that cost.
FT. MEADE STORAGE MODULE TWO
Mr. Taylor. We are hitting on several things because many
Members of the committee want to ask various questions and that
is reasonable for them to do at this time. But could you go
back on some of the things? We talked about the Library of
Congress, and you are thinking this year you will be moving
into module number 1. What about number 2? Have you issued a
contract for design work for the module 2 out at Ft. Meade?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes, we have executed an agreement with the
Corps of Engineers. We will get the contract signed about the
library hopefully this week, and then once we do that we will
be able to sit down and initiate the design process with an
architect and an engineer.
Mr. Taylor. Have you consulted with the library on the
requirements that they have? And are you working closely so we
will not get to a point and find out maybe we put it in the
wrong spot?
Mr. Turnbull. We have an official program that we have been
working closely with the LOC staff and our staff to come to a
point where we now have a definitive program for this next
facility.
Mr. Hantman. Which will be signed both by the Library of
Congress and by myself, so that this is our understanding, this
is the foundation we build on and we go forward.
[The following questions from Mr. Moran were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
Library of Congress Storage
Question. What is the status of the design work on Phase II of the
Fort Meade storage facility?
Response. We have recently completed the written program of
requirements for Phase II. This is a major milestone and improvement
over Phase I where we never had a written set of requirements before
starting the design process. Once we have a final signature from the
Librarian of Congress on the program of Requirements, we will issue the
document to the Corps of Engineers for execution of a design contract.
We expect this to take place in June 2002.
Question. Why are construction funds not included in the fiscal
year 2003 budget?
Response. We are currently preparing and will submit a budget
amendment requesting funds for the construction of Module 2 and design
funds for Modules 3 and 4 in our fiscal year 2003 budget.
Question. Why has it taken so long to design a facility that is
very similar to the Phase I facility?
Response. The most important element in any project is a clear
definition of the requirements before starting the design process. The
dynamic situation in the criteria for these facilities continues today
and is further complicated by the class of materials stored in a
module. To this end, we have been very deliberate in this process and
have worked very closely with the Library to develop a fully
coordinated written Program of Requirements prior to starting design.
We now have that document complete and upon final signatures, will move
this project into the design phase.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT ISSUES
Mr. Taylor. I know there is $82 million requested for the
west refrigeration plan expansion that you have requested. Are
there any environmental issues that need to be addressed?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I explained earlier,
the refrigerant that is currently used in the east chiller
plant is no longer manufactured. It is an ozone-depleting
substance. It has to be discontinued by the year 2015. The
extra capacity needed by the Visitor Center is imminent in
2005. And unless we are able to complete this facility, we will
have a shortfall in the overall complex.
Mr. Hantman. One other issue, Mr. Chairman, is the EPA
permissible levels of emission at this point in time. We are
meeting those levels of emission by burning 80 percent coal and
20 percent gas, and our permit will take us out several more
years on that level of emission which we will be successfully
meeting.
If the EPA standards are tightened up, we will have to take
a look at changing these fuel economics and making other
adjustments to stay within the guidelines for emissions from
the EPA.
Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Chairman, I want to add that we also have
just had a second independent cost estimate brought into our
office which confirms that that order of magnitude is correct.
Mr. Hantman. What that does, we take another lesson from
what we are doing on the Visitor Center. We have 2 estimates,
different firms looking at the project from the same
perspective, the same drawings, and try to work out the
differences between costs that they may see to confirm that the
budget is in the right order of magnitude. So we have, as Mr.
Turnbull indicated, a second confirming estimate which now says
that the $81 million that we are requesting is the right order
of magnitude, and we can certainly share that information with
you to say that this is a real number. And now that we have got
100 percent design and we have confirmed it at the suggestion
and requirement of this committee, that we are comfortable that
that is the right amount for us to go out there and bid the
project.
Mr. Taylor. All right. We are going to have a brief recess.
I think Ms. Kaptur had a couple of other questions and we have
2 5-minute votes, and so we will have about a 10-minute recess.
[Recess.]
RAYBURN BUILDING ROOM NUMBERING
Mr. Taylor. The committee will come back to order.
Marcy, you had a couple of questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We ended with the
issue of numbering here. I would like to place on the record in
the Rayburn Building, if you take the numbers at ground level
and go up, we have a building with 4 second stories. It is the
strangest building to work in. I will not even get into the
garages because most people cannot find their way in and out of
them. If you get lost, you will not come out for two months.
Mr. Lewis. There is an old saying around here: if you have
been here long enough not to get lost in the Rayburn Building,
you have been here too long.
Ms. Kaptur. I would beg you to look at that issue. This is
interesting, too. My able staff member Roger Szemraj reminds me
that the Russell Building had 3 digits for the office numbers
and the Dirksen had 4 digits. So this is endemic to both sides.
And it is actually kind of an agglomeration system rather than
a system that is thought through for the convenience of the
public and the users. But I think a better numbering system
complemented with the kiosks and information that you are
talking about would be long overdue.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT USEFUL LIFE
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to just ask about the power plant.
What is the life? I know you are doing repairs and a lot of
things to it. What is the actual remaining life of this power
plant? And I will tell you where I am coming from. I am coming
from not wanting to have to pay, as I read this, $1 million--
whatever the fuel costs were for purchases of oil in 2001. I am
assuming that is $1.7 something--is that million?
Mr. Turnbull. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. And then coal is $970 million?
Mr. Hantman. $2.5 million for the coal, $1.7, you are
correct for the oil, and natural gas was $4.5.
Ms. Kaptur. So natural gas is the largest purchase that you
are making.
Mr. Hantman. Except for electricity. We do not produce our
own electricity. It is only steam and chilled water. We spend
$23 million with PEPCO to provide us with electricity.
Ms. Kaptur. What percent of power that is used here is
purchased versus produced?
Mr. Hantman. All of the electricity is purchased and so is
the natural gas. But--all the utilities are purchased. So we
produce our own steam, we produce our own chilled water. Other
than that, it is standard utility costs that we pay.
Ms. Kaptur. It is just a pass-through. Basically we are
buying from PEPCO.
Mr. Hantman. For electricity, yes. Or gas.
Ms. Kaptur. I did not realize that. I thought you did more
down there.
Mr. Hantman. Steam and chilled water.
Ms. Kaptur. And the steam is used for?
Mr. Hantman. It is used for chilling, for heating, for
year-round type of needs. And we burn mixtures of coal and gas
to produce that.
Ms. Kaptur. There is not time to go into this in this
hearing, but I would appreciate some type of overview summary,
maybe two or three pages, in terms of the Architect of the
Capitol's perspective on our power system, what type of system
you want it to be 20 years from now, whether we want to
continue purchasing or producing.
I am a new Member to this subcommittee, but I am very
interested. I am obviously someone who votes beyond the
petroleum age, I am way beyond that. And as I look at the new
Botanical Gardens being built, one of the questions I ask, not
having been on this subcommittee, is to what extent we could
have used photovoltaic systems to heat and cool in that
building. I do not know how power is being provided in that
building. It is a huge greenhouse and there are ways--I
represent the largest greenhouse growing county in the State of
Ohio. There are ways to deal with heat and cooling that do not
rely only on plugging into a centralized system.
I am very interested in renewables and I would appreciate
when that summary is written if one could talk a bit about
looking at a new power future for the Capitol itself, to what
extent renewables, co-generation, are being considered as a
national example of what the Nation must do. And at the same
time, as you are spending so much of your budget on building
higher barricades and securing this place from even a fly, I
think we have to, every single American has to think about why
are we in this mess to begin with?
And in my opinion, and I have said this at other meetings,
our oil dependence, particularly on undemocratic places in the
Middle East, has played very heavily into the support of
regimes that have created great instability in their own part
of the world and now they are striking back at us. But part of
the solution that we need to take care of here at home is to
become energy-independent here at home. And there is no better
place to start than here in the Capitol. So I am interested in
your perspective on power production for this system, and also
the vulnerability of this facility to any kind of interruption
of power because of its location and how that is factoring into
your thinking about how to prepare for a different future.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you.
[Clerk's note. The overview report requested by Ms. Kaptur
will be supplied to the Committee at a future date.]
Ms. Kaptur. Finally, on that power question, when I asked
about how much is generated versus purchased, would you say 10
percent in terms of heating is actually generated on site for
the steam heat versus the acquisition of power from PEPCO and
the gas purchase?
Mr. Hantman. If we can get back to you on those numbers, we
would be more than happy to provide that information.
Capitol Power Plant
Question. How much power is generated versus purchased, would you
say 10 percent in terms of heating is actually generated on site for
steam heat versus the acquisition of power from PEPCO and the gas
purchase?
Response: The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) currently is not capable of
producing electric power. Steam is generated at the CPP for heating the
Capitol Complex by burning coal, oil and natural gas. Fuel selection is
based on current fuel pricing. Steam will also be used to supply steam
for steam turbine drives to operate chillers installed as part of the
West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project. Installation of these
turbine drives will reduce the electric consumption of the CPP and save
approximately $2.5 million per year in utility costs. All power for the
Capitol Complex is purchased by PEPCO. Our current contract with PEPCO
does not require any information regarding the source of power to be
disclosed. PEPCO is required to adhere to all federal and local
emission requirements.
BOTANIC GARDEN MASTERPIECE
Ms. Kaptur. All right, I would be very interested in that.
On the Botanic Garden, which I think is a masterpiece--and
Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt and lots of other
Americans would be pleased with the fact that this great
botanical garden is right next to the Capitol of the United
States--as a Member of the Agriculture subcommittee, I could
not be happier.
Mr. Hantman. I am not sure if you are aware that we are
about to get an award from the Washington Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects, from the Art Deco Society of
Washington, and from the Horticultural Society, claiming this
as a national horticultural monument. We are getting several
awards for the work that we have done on that and I fully agree
with you, it is magnificent.
NATIONAL GARDEN
Ms. Kaptur. The American people, working through you and
this Congress, have a great deal to be proud of, and what it is
today and what it will become over the years. And one of my
questions to you really has to do with a long struggle to try
to get the life sciences more visibility along the Mall, and as
opposed to just the space sciences, aeronautics and so forth. I
have had a long-standing struggle with the Department of
Agriculture to showcase some of its incredible work which is
hidden in research greenhouses around this country. One of my
questions really to you is--thinking about that Botanical
Gardens and the incredible number of visitors that you are
receiving and will receive. It will only grow with the years.
It will probably be one of the most popular exhibits in
Washington, D.C.--who pays for any programming that could be
constructed by the staff there that could eventually not just
be bound up inside that building, but could be beamed across
the country to classrooms and to settings where youth could
learn because of the collections there and their ability to
link to, for example, Department of Agriculture research that
exists related to horticulture and the plant sciences? Who pays
for that? Is it you? Is it the Smithsonian? The programming
itself, who pays for that?
Mr. Hantman. In line with the discussion that Congressman
Moran and I were having before about the National Garden, that
is exactly what this private nonprofit is planning to do, to
endow us with dollars to be able to do those kind of programs.
The interpretive learning center that would be part of the
National Garden has classrooms in it which should have the
satellite capability to be able to broadcast those programs to
schools nationwide.
We have cooperative agreements with different agencies and
groups, including the Smithsonian, to exchange exhibits,
traveling exhibits with other institutions around the country
are things that we are into. We are trying to do it
economically. We had a wonderful exhibit with orchids that was
done in concert with the Smithsonian that just ended a little
while ago. We are really trying to piggyback on other agencies,
other institutions, and share with them around the country.
The reality is, though, once the National Gardens gets up
and running, if we get that endowment from this 501(c)(3)
group, we should be able to produce some of those programs and
do a lot more programming than----
NATIONAL GARDEN FUNDING
Ms. Kaptur. You see it being funded by this 501(c)(3). How
large is it, this 501(c)(3), going to be? How much money?
Mr. Hantman. What is the cap on that? 16\1/2\ million as a
total. Some millions of dollars over and above the cost of the
construction could be put towards endowing future programs.
Ms. Kaptur. So you do not know the amount that would be
available? That would be an interest-bearing account, you are
saying?
Mr. Hantman. Conceptually speaking.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I will tell you, I am very interested in
cooperative relationships with the Department of Agriculture to
link to the Botanic Gardens. I think we can work on that. We
should talk about that further. There is a book that has been
produced after enormous effort called ``Food, Land, and
People'', which is a teaching curriculum that every classroom
in America should have for our children. There is no reason
that the programming that would be established at the Botanic
Gardens could not access work that is already out there like
that. I do not think that amount of money, the 16.5 million,
which is not solely for programming, is sufficient to do what I
am talking about.
So I would be very interested in talking to the set of
people, whomever they are, that are concerned about programming
for the future and what the Botanic Gardens can do for our
country and indeed the world.
Mr. Hantman. Well, I think when our first President, George
Washington, envisioned a botanic garden in concert with the
Capitol, education was certainly one of the goals that he had
in mind, and anything we can do to enhance that would be
wonderful.
Ms. Kaptur. Let me ask you, the memorial to 9/11, we had
talked about incorporating something on that in some of the
gardens that are being planned there. We never got a response
following the meeting on that subject. If you could check with
your staff and have somebody get back to us, we would
appreciate it very much. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman
[Clerk's note.--The office of the Architect of the Capitol
is currently working with the leadership of the Congress and at
this time 9/11 memorials are still under review and
consultation.]
VISITOR CENTER EAST PLAZA
Mr. Taylor. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Architect, I think your job around here is
maybe one of the hardest jobs there is, and it may be an
impossible job. I did have an opportunity when I went up to
vote to talk to Ted Van der Meid in the Speaker's Office about
my objections to your layout for Members getting to the
Capitol. And I think if I can just say one more word about it,
I hope you will go back and look at it again. I think it is
going to be a disaster.
And I go back to what I said before, the one reason we come
here is to vote. And Members have to have easy access to the
Capitol. So if you could look at it again. I have very strong
objections to it. And I know that Mr. Hoyer has made
arrangements for you to brief the Members. I think you are
going to hear a lot of screaming in that meeting if you come
with that board that you have here and present that as a way
for Members. Because, with all due respect, I do not think
there is any way, shape or form that you will ever complete the
work that you want to do with the Visitor Center and the
Capitol on time. And I do not say that out of disrespect for
you. I just think it is going to be impossible to do it. I
really do. So I hope you can, but I do not think you will.
NATIONAL GARDEN FUNDING
Mr. LaHood. I missed something along the way on the Botanic
Gardens, so if you could, just for my own benefit. You told Mr.
Moran that what he characterized as the junkyard was going to
be cleaned up. When the 501(c)(3) gets a certain amount of
money, then they are going to do the work? Is that the deal?
Mr. Hantman. We have designed basically the entire rest of
the block to be a work in concert with the Botanic Garden
conservatory and that would take us over towards the American
Indian Museum. It is bounded by Maryland Avenue, Independence,
et cetera. We have full construction documents designed to
build this out. The program was developed in concert with the
501(c)(3) and with our officers of the Botanic Garden to
supplement the type of exhibits we have inside the BG and to,
we were talking with Ms. Kaptur, talk about this interpretive
learning center and those other elements. That design is there,
ready to go, ready to be bid. It will be bid and run through
this office.
Basically what needs to happen is this nonprofit needs to
transfer the money to a government account.
Mr. LaHood. Do they have the money?
Mr. Hantman. They are still short some of the money.
Mr. LaHood. How much?
Mr. Hantman. I think $1.7 million or something like that.
They have something like $10 million now.
Mr. LaHood. And they need $12 million.
Mr. Hantman. Basically $12 million for the construction.
Mr. LaHood. And they will not transfer the money until they
get it in hand?
Mr. Hantman. We would not be able to bid it with the anti-
deficiency issues unless we had all the money in hand.
Mr. LaHood. And when you talk to them about this, what do
they say?
Mr. Hantman. We have been talking to them in recent weeks.
We are very frustrated about that. They are saying they are
working on their donors and they will get back to us shortly,
and we can certainly keep you informed of that.
Mr. Turnbull. They had anticipated getting a bridge loan
without that funding support. That has not happened and so they
are still going back and looking at their donors for additional
support.
Mr. LaHood. I wonder if they would want to check with
either Senator Corzine or Senator Kerry on this matter?
Mr. Hoyer. The Chair is probably available.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Moran, do you have any further comments?
Mr. Moran. No, I think we ought to give this guy a break
here. Enough is enough.
Mr. LaHood. It is about time you gave him a break after all
the grief you have given him.
Mr. Moran. All I want to do is follow through on some
ideas. I think we have exhausted this subject matter. We have
full access to your reports over the next few weeks.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sherwood? Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. I have a number of questions, but I am going to
submit them for the record, and ask if we could get answers to
them relatively soon so we could have them before the markup.
[The following questions from Mr. Hoyer were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
House Office Buildings
Question. Please provide an overall update on your work on Fire and
Life Safety projects in the House complex, including at the Library of
Congress (LOC). I appreciate your providing the ``Milestones'' that the
House Inspector General recommended for addressing the deficiencies at
the LOC. Do you have any concerns about being able to keep that
schedule going forward?
Response. It is difficult to be brief about the massive efforts
underway in the area of fire safety. In fiscal year 2000, we received
$17.9 million in supplemental funding and in fiscal year 2002, we
received another $14.5 million to address fire and other safety needs.
Between these two appropriations alone, there are over 85 projects
addressing fire and other safety issues on Capitol Hill. As you know,
many of our buildings were built long ago, under the codes of their
time. We are in the midst of bringing the buildings on Capitol Hill
into compliance with today's more stringent fire and life safety codes.
The House of Representatives Page Dorm located at 501 First Street
SE meets modern fire code requirements.
Fire Detection: Great strides have been made in ensuring prompt
detection of fires. Firemen's phones have been installed in all
buildings. Smoke detectors and fire alarms are now compliant with
modern codes in House of Representatives Office Buildings except the
Cannon and Longworth where the remaining architecturally sensitive
areas (5%) are under study.
Fire Suppression: Sprinkler systems are in place in over 90% of
House of Representatives Office building spaces except the Rayburn
Building. The Rayburn Office Building Renovation project, 75% complete
now, will provide a fully sprinkled building. Studies and construction
are underway to fully sprinkler each building.
Egress: Three revolving doors in Cannon and one in Longworth have
been replaced (remaining revolving door replacement contract awarded
replacement scheduled for later this year).
The US Capitol is approximately 70% compliant in smoke detection,
90% compliant in door swing, and 25% compliant in fire alarm, fire
suppression, and egress. Just this month, the East Front revolving door
was replaced. Earlier this year, the Capitol Public Address system
became operational. Fire detection and alarm installation is ongoing.
Fire suppression and egress are being addressed as part of the US
Capitol Master Plan currently under development. The latest advances in
fire modeling and fire code equivalences are being used extensively to
ensure that we provide adequate life safety while balancing historic
preservation needs.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BUILDINGS
Fire Detection: Smoke detectors and fire alarms are now compliant
with modern codes in: 60% of the Thomas Jefferson building; 75% of the
John Adams Building; 98% of the James Madison building.
Studies and construction are underway to provide smoke detection
and alarms throughout all three buildings.
Fire Suppression: Over 90% of the Library of Congress building
spaces have sprinkler coverage. Studies are underway to sprinkler the
remaining areas in each building.
95% of the Thomas Jefferson building; 98% of the John Adams
Building; 90% of the James Madison building.
Egress: Over 75% of the Jefferson and Adams buildings and 99% of
the Madison building are compliant with modern egress requirements.
Studies have recently been completed.
CAMPUS WIDE
Campus wide, fire pumps and fire alarm systems have been tested.
Fire alarm audibility (can you hear it) and intelligibility (can you
understand what is being said) surveys have been completed. Evacuation
drills have been held in conjunction with the US Capitol Police and the
LOC Police. The US Capitol Police and my staff have developed new
evacuation brochures. The US Capitol Police will be distributing them
shortly.
SUMMARY
Great progress has been made but there is much left to do,
especially in the areas of egress, smoke control, and fire alarm
audibility. These improvements will not come quickly or inexpensively.
Egress and smoke control improvements require time staking fire
modeling, extensive engineering evaluation and design. Fire alarm
audibility and intelligibility improvements require extensive design by
acoustics experts. In these areas, I anticipate a two-year design
process and a multi-year construction process for our complex
historically sensitive buildings.
HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAM
Question. The Superintendent of the House Office Buildings has made
changes to the House Recycling Program, including changing the
containers and creating a special recycling crew to collect the
materials each evening before the regular cleaning crew begins its
work. Have program results improved since last year? Are you
considering other changes to the progam?
Response. Over the course of the past year, HOB staff has been
implementing improvements to the recycling program by making the
program more user friendly for participants. We distributed 10,865
newly labeled containers. In addition, in an effort to decrease the
contamination rate, the color of the wet waste containers has changed
from blue to gray, thereby distinguishing between recycling (blue) and
wet waste (gray) containers. When comparing the first five months of
fiscal year 2001 to the first five months of fiscal year 2002, we
achieved the following results: high grade paper increased by 9 tons/
month; newspaper increased by 21 tons/month, cardboard increased by 6
tons/month and aluminum can/glass and bottles increased by 2 tons/
month. However, as a result of the closure of the buildings due to the
anthrax contamination and the lack of incoming mail, the amount of
mixed paper decreased by approximately 10 tons/month. To date, over
sixty percent of the House offices have received the new gray wet waste
containers and modified recycling containers. Eighty-five percent of
participants recently surveyed stated that they were satisfied with the
program. The other fifteen percent stated they were unsatisfied because
they wished to make some minor adjustments to the types of containers
they originally ordered, their requests were immediately fulfilled.
During the initial phases of implementing the modifications to the
program, HOB recycling staff held over 33 seminars for all staffers to
inform them of the changes. In addition, when containers are switched
out in an office that has submitted an order form every employee in
that office is given a recycling brochure and informational sticker to
post on their computer monitor or filing cabinet. Enhanced marketing
efforts are being carried out to inform offices about the recycling
program. For example, information regarding available containers and
the recycling brochure has been posted on the AOC Internet with
additional information to follow: HOB recycling staff will be
distributing a recycling newsletter, which will emphasize the positive
results that have been achieved. (We recycle an average of 2,000 tons/
year). The cable channel has been used in the past and will be utilized
again to promote the program.
In an effort to decrease the contamination rate, HOB staff will be
exchanging old blue wet waste containers with new gray containers in
those offices that have not yet had time to have all of their
containers updated. This should have an immediate positive impact on
the contamination levels because staffers will now be asked to use only
the gray containers for their wet waste and their blue containers for
recycling materials. HOB staff is currently working on salvaging as
much material as possible from the O'Neill building before its
demolition. In addition, HOB staff has been reviewing the demolition
specs to ensure that the contractor will recycle as much of the
building materials (i.e. metal, wood etc.) as possible. HOB recycling
staff will be working with the AOC Resource Conservation Manager to
reduce the amount of construction and demolition material from within
the House Office Buildings going to the landfill.
RAYBURN GARAGE FLOOR
Question. You seek $1.4 million in fiscal year 2003 for design of
the Rayburn Garage Floor Repairs, and you anticipate requesting $14
million for the work in fiscal year 2005. These repairs are urgently
needed, but will greatly disrupt parking arrangements for quite some
time. Are you including in your plans special arrangements to minimize
the burdens on the hundreds of Members and staff whom park in the
Rayburn? Are there any new, post-9/11 security concerns or
opportunities that come with this project?
Response. A December 1998 structural condition assessment revealed
considerable deterioration of the floors of the Rayburn garage due to
road salt and water penetration. This project is to arrest that
deterioration. The AOC has requested design funding in fiscal year 2003
for developing the contract documents to repair the structural flooring
in the Rayburn HOB garage. Construction funds will be requested in
fiscal year 2005. During the design phase, consideration will be given
to phase the construction such that impact on members and staff will be
minimized. Also, discussions will be held with the Committee on House
Administration to address this issue and determine alternatives during
the design phase. This approach was used in the Cannon Garage
Renovation and was very successful with minimal disruption to members
and staff.
The security emergency supplemental will address most security
concerns. We continue to work with the Sergeant at Arms and the Police
to improve our security posture. Given the sensitivities on specific
projects, it would be best to address them in a different forum.
RECRUIT ADDITIONAL CUSTODIANS
Question. At last year's hearing, the Superintendent of the House
Office Buildings discussed his ongoing efforts to recruit additional
custodians to assure adequate staffing each day for this essential
function. Has the situation improved in the last ten months?
Response. The day policing efforts and quality have improved over
the last year. We have implemented a Quality Assurance program to
monitor the cleanliness of the public spaces. We presently are cleaning
the female restrooms in the Cannon and Rayburn buildings with
contractor employees and the remaining public bathrooms and other
public spaces with AOC staff. The present cleaning standards being
performed do not meet the requirements of a Class A office building.
Due to shortage in resources, the HOB is performing day cleaning at
reduced intervals. As an example, we presently police the public
bathrooms 3-4 times daily as opposed to every hour. We are presently
performing a thorough analysis to determine the resource requirements
to maintain day policing efforts to meet the industry standards for a
Class A building.
FLAG-FLYING OPERATIONS
Question. How much money did the flag-flying operation generate in
each of the last three years for which complete data are available, and
what was its disposition?
Response. Flag flying fees are collected and deposited into the
treasury. For fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 funds were received
as follows: FY 1999--$337,167.45; FY2000--$387,796.95; FY2001--
$398,922.30.
ART REPRESENTING WOMEN
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I completely forgot
a subject quite important to myself and to the Women's Caucus
and that relates to the art collections of the Capitol and to
what extent they reflect the contributions of women to the
development of this Nation, and it is a topic that we had
written and worked with the Architect on. I am not sure that
there is complete understanding of what we are talking about
here. We are not just talking about acquiring art that may have
been produced by women but, in fact, a reflection of the
contributions of women to American life beyond Pocahontas,
which is the one major painting in the central dome. So we had
asked the Architect for some studies of how paintings and
frescos and art works could be rotated through here, and we
have never really gotten a very coherent reply.
It is something that does not appear to be that
complicated. When the Visitor Center is built, that is another
opportunity, but it is not the only need here, looking at the
numbers of children that come through these buildings. I am
wondering what you can report on that, if anything, to the
committee and how you can follow up with us on making these
buildings more representative of the fullness of American life.
Mr. Hantman. As you implied, Congresswoman, there are
opportunities for new art in the CVC. And as you know, it will
take many years to bring the CVC those art works. There is no
line budget right now in the project for the CVC for
commissioning art work. Perhaps that comes from outside
sources. As far as saving some space for future generations, I
think that needs to be done. Everything should not be filled up
from day one. But both the House and the Senate, in terms of
leadership, are actively looking at what we should be doing in
terms of these opportunities, whether we move existing art work
or sculpture or borrow things from the Archives.
Ms. Kaptur. May I just give you an example? I hate to
interrupt you and I do not want to drag this out, but I was
looking for a painting of a woman named Mary Norton. This is
what goes on in this Capitol, and I am going to put it on the
record because nobody else does, and I am really tired of it.
She was very important. She served during the Roosevelt years,
and she is responsible for the most significant labor
legislation ever signed into law, the minimum wage, time and-a-
half overtime, 40-hour week, no child labor. I tried to find
her painting. Now I do not know who is responsible for hanging
or putting it up. She also chaired the D.C. Committee as a
woman back before World War II. I finally located her painting
in an annex, not even on the main Capitol grounds. I was so
outraged. I got it hung in my office because it cannot be hung
around here. So how is that possible? It is not your fault. It
has been endemic and she is not the only one.
Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, incredible human being, served
with us so many years. We have, I suppose you could call it a
portrait, but it is not really oil, in the women's reading
room, which is barred to 97 percent of the people who visit
here. That is how we think. And we have to think a new way.
This is the 21st century.
So the fact that I have tried for so many years--I tried
politely at first. I wrote letters. I met with people. I got
little reports, but nothing ever happens. Congressman Hoyer is
helping us do a revision of ``The Women in Congress.'' Most
people will never read that book. We need to have this place
visually represent who we are and what we have done as a
people, and women are absolutely not up on these walls. I
believe that is your responsibility, and you have to work with
the Fine Arts Commissioner and whoever else who is around here
responsible for the arts. But we have been trying for many,
many years. I have had it. And so you are on the receiving end
of this anger this morning, but I would like to see something
done about this.
Mr. Hantman. Certainly. In terms of planning for the CVC
and moving that forward, I will be taking an active role and
working with the commissions from both the House and the Senate
side to try to talk about art and the appropriateness of art.
Ms. Kaptur. You talked about the Visitor Center. Is that
what you were talking about, or are you talking about the whole
Capitol?
Mr. Hantman. The Senate has its own curator and the House
has its own curator and the Architect of the Capitol also has a
curator, so it is a question of working all of those components
together and making decisions from both the House and Senate
and the Architect's side in terms of what is commissioned, if
it is new work, and what is to be hung. You are perfectly
right.
Ms. Kaptur. I believe they hung an additional painting in
the Senate for Hattie Carraway. She was known as Silent Hattie
during her years of service here. There is one additional
portrait of a woman on the Senate side.
Mr. Chairman, I am complete, but I would ask the Architect
to submit for the record--I think Mr. Hoyer had a very good
suggestion here--and that is an inventory of all art
representing women in the Capitol
[The inventory of all art representing women in the Capitol
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HISTORICAL TOUR
Mr. Taylor. I would like you to take a historical tour that
I give for women. We start with the Jeannette Rankin statue and
go to the Lindy Boggs room. When we get in, we think we ought
to be able to get the pictures displayed of the number of
women. A lot of people do not realize the number of women who
have served in the Congress and that gives a vivid display. And
I could go on, but I thank you, Mr. Hantman, and for the work
you are doing and your presentation here today. We thank you
very much.
Mr. Hantman. Once again, Mr. Chairman, your opening remarks
were truly appreciated in terms of recognizing the work of the
many men and women who contributed to the Congress over this
last year. I thank you, sir.
EMPLOYEE SALARIES
Mr. Hoyer. Am I correct, your budget submission includes a
4.1 percent raise for your employees, consistent with the
present proposal? The good news is from the legislative
branch's standpoint throughout, they have done parity, which
has not been true of the executive department which Mr. Moran
and I and others are going to be working on.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you Alan for your appearance here today.
[The following questions from Chairman Taylor were
submitted to be answered for the record:]
General Administration
The AOC is requesting 26 additional FTE's to support various
existing operations and a new office of ``energy conservation and
management''; this office will have the responsibility to achieve a net
reduction of 20% in energy consumption compared to the FY 1991
consumption levels.
Question. This was a requirement that was included in the FY 1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (section 310). Why has it taken 4
years for you to address this issue?
Response. The Energy Conservation effort is continuing but
certainly not at the desired pace due to the lack of dedicated staff
for this function. Currently efforts such as developing the
documentation to establish the 1991 baseline consumption data are
underway as are continuing energy conservation efforts related to
specific project design in the buildings and at the Capitol Power
Plant. This staffing request has been submitted in previous years and
declined.
Question. Will this be a temporary operation established just to
meet the requirements outlined in the 1999 act?
Response. This effort is in response to the 1999 Act but is not a
temporary operation. In order for an energy conservation effort to be
successful it must continue. If improvements to operation and systems
along with awareness are not provided with continuing oversight the
savings realized will diminish with time. In addition, the Act requires
certain ongoing efforts such as annual reports to Congress. The
Architect's office anticipates a continuing effort to review operations
and projects on an ongoing basis, provide continuing guidance on the
procurement of energy efficient equipment and services, continuing
awareness efforts, etc. to assure continued efficient use of energy
throughout the complex.
The AOC has requested a funding increase for 43 additional
positions.
Question. How many of these are managerial positions?
Response. Five positions are managerial: an ECM Branch Chief, a
HVAC Branch Chief, a Facilities Manager, an Assistant Director of A/E,
and a supervisory management analyst for workforce management.
Question. Does it make sense to hire additional management
personnel prior to the completion of GAO's review?
Response. Yes, however I am reexamining my request for these key
positions.
COMPUTER FORENSIC SERVICES
The AOC has a request for $55 thousand dollars for computer
forensic services to perform investigations related to policy
violations.
Question. What would be a policy violation?
Response. According to AOC Order 8-1 dated July 5, 2000, ``The AOC
provides e-mail as a tool for business communications, and users have
the responsibility to use this resource in an efficient, effective,
ethical, and lawful manner.''
The policy also provides more specific information relating to
policy violations in section 6:
6.0 E-MAIL AND INTERNET POLICY
1. In general, users may use AOC e-mail and Internet access as
required in their assigned positions or as directed to fulfill their
official duties and responsibilities. An exception to this general rule
is the use of AOC e-mail and the Internet for incidental personal
purposes, for example, use concerning home and family, where the
message would not violate any provisions of this order. This exception
does not apply if such use: (1) directly or indirectly interferes with
the AOC e-mail or Internet systems or (2) interferes with an AOC
employee's performance of official duties or other obligations to the
Government or (3) involves the transmission or receipt of offensive,
harassing, obscene, or threatening or otherwise objectionable material.
The determination of whether messages or other material constitutes
offensive, harassing, obscene, or threatening or otherwise
objectionable material will be based on standards that are applicable
in the business community. The fact that a recipient of e-mail does not
personally find the e-mail to meet these criteria is only one factor in
the analysis and, by itself, may not be determinative. Any
determination in this regard will be within the sole and exclusive
discretion of the AOC. Further guidance on the standards of conduct
applicable to users may be found in the Office Policy for the Architect
of the Capitol, Standards of Conduct, May 11, 1989, paragraph 4.4.
2. The use of e-mail or the Internet for viewing or disseminating
sexually explicit or obscene material is strictly prohibited and is a
violation of this order.
3. The use of e-mail or the Internet to disseminate or print
copyrighted materials, including text, images, or software, in
violation of copyright laws is strictly prohibited and is a violation
of this order.
4. The use of e-mail for soliciting funds, promoting outside
business interests, sending ``chain'' letters, transmitting jokes,
cartoons or other non-business related material, supporting political
purposes, advertising goods or services, or participating in any news
group not related to AOC or the performance of a user's official duties
is strictly prohibited and is a violation of this order.
5. Users shall maintain a businesslike and proper tone in all of
their messages, respect the sensibilities and privacy of others, and
insure the appropriateness of message content. For example, messages
that contain or disseminate gender, racial, ethnic, religious, age,
national origin, or disability slurs are prohibited. The use of e-mail
and the Internet for disseminating abusive, discriminatory, or
defamatory messages or materials is strictly prohibited.
6. Users should not download browser plug-ins, application
freeware, or software from the Internet. Users shall not download or
play any other material that would be in violation of other provisions
of this order.
7. Users of e-mail must safeguard the confidentiality of any
documents related to AOC business. The exchange via e-mail of
proprietary information or any other privileged, confidential, or
sensitive information other than within the performance of official
duties is prohibited.
8. Messages sent or received via AOC e-mail are not private. All e-
mail accounts maintained on the e-mail systems are the sole property of
AOC. AOC has the right to monitor any employee's e-mail account for any
reason, including verification of compliance with this Order,
validation of employee performance, and investigations prompted by
reasonable suspicion of activities that violate this Order. For these
and other reasons, users should have no expectation of privacy in
connection with the use of the AOC e-mail or Internet, or with the
transmission, receipt, or storage of information in these systems.
9. Permission to use AOC e-mail and access to the Internet using
AOC equipment may be revoked at any time. As stated above, violations
of this order may also result in disciplinary action against a user,
including termination.
Question. In the past have you encountered any criminal violations
that you forwarded to the Capitol Police for investigation?
Response. Yes, the AOC discovered a serious violation, which was
forwarded to the U.S. Capitol Police for investigation. The incident
led to the request for computer forensic services to be made available
to the agency on an annual basis in order to make expert resources
available should other serious violations occur.
INTEGRATED DIGITAL SERVICE
You have a request for $1 million to subscribe to an
integrated digital service to address human resource, workforce
management, and other administrative processes.
Question. Did you have a set of system requirements defined
before selection of the system?
Response. Yes, AOC has developed its Technical Requirements
Document for selection of an automated system. Requirements for
the system selection were generated based on personal
interviews with Human Resources staff, Agency managers and
employees, Information Technology staff, as well as interviews
with other federal agencies currently using such a system.
Question. What were those requirements?
Response. A summary of the specifications is outlined as
follows. The Requirements Document is available for review.
1. Recruitment, Staffing and Classification
2. Work Force Management
3. Succession Planning and Salary Management and
Organizational Forecasting
4. Security and Privacy
5. Infrastructure and Interoperability
6. Implementation
Question. What if any other systems have you evaluated?
Response. AOC has reviewed the following systems: Resumix,
QuickHire, Peoplesoft. Currently, each one of these systems
does not provide for staffing and classification of federal
positions. The first two systems do not provide an integrated
approach to classification, recruitment, and workforce
planning. Peoplesoft is a payroll and personnel processing
system. Based on the General Services Administration Schedule,
no other systems provide an integrated federal product for
classification and job content services.
Question. What other government agencies use this service?
Response. United States Department of Agriculture
Consortium
Forest Service
USDA Headquarters
Office of the Secretary
US Coast Guard
Department of Transportation Mode Consortium
Transporation Administrative Services Center (TASC)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Research & Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
National Highways Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS)
National Institutes of Health--Office of Research Services
(NIORS)
Health & Human Services--Program Support Center Consortium
Program Support Center (PSC)
Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Department of Justice Consortium
Justice Management Division (JMD)
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
Community Relations
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
U.S. Trustees
Executive Office of Immigration (EOI)
GSA--National Capital Region
United States Agency for International Development
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of State
Environmental Protection Agency
In addition, memoranda of understanding have been signed
with the following affinity groups: Blacks In Government (BIG)
and the Federal Asian Pacific American Council (FAPAC).
Question. Have you surveyed any of the current users:
Response: AOC's project team has conducted on-site
interviews with the following federal agencies:
Library of Congress--Office of Human Resources, Office of
Inspector General, Office of Information Technology
U.S. Forest Service*
U.S. Coast Guard*
Environmental Protection Agency
*AOC surveyed these agencies due to their extensive skilled
and unskilled labor force.
Question. The Library of Congress is a user of this system.
Have you spoken to the Library concerning the capabilities of
this system?
Response. Yes, AOC's project team has worked extensively
with the Library of Congress concerning the capabilities of the
automated system. The LOC System Project Manager has provided
AOC with hands-on demonstrations and system design plans from
the Library's perspective and has been invaluable in terms of
feedback and implementation guidance. In addition, AOC's
project team has met with the Director and Deputy Director of
the Information Technology Branch to discuss system features,
security framework issues, and platform considerations. Members
of the team have also conducted phone interviews with the LOC
Inspector General concerning a recent review of the LOC system.
REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARMY
You have a $200 thousand base for the operation and
maintenance of the existing landscaping and structures located
at Fort Meade and for reimbursement to the army for services
provided by them. Considering we only have warehouses at the
base, $200 thousand for maintenance and landscaping seems high.
Question. What is the break down between operation and
maintenance costs and reimbursement costs to the Army?
Response. The anticipated breakdown between operation and
maintenance costs and reimbursement costs to the Army for
fiscal year 2002 is 65% for operation and maintenance and 35%
for reimbursement costs to the Army.
Question. Are the reimbursement costs to the Army shared
costs between all the tenants of the base?
Response. It depends on the service being provided. For
Fire Prevention and Protection, the reimbursement cost is based
on a fixed unit cost per square foot, which is the same for all
tenants. Other reimbursement costs, such as communications,
minor facility repair and maintenance, and utilities, are based
on actual costs.
Question. What are the services that are provided?
Response. Fort Meade provides the following services: Fire
Prevention and Protection, Minor Facility Repair and
Maintenance, Communications, and Utilities. As previously
stated, other than Fire Prevention and Protection, all services
through Fort Meade are paid for based on actual cost/usage.
Landscaping and Snow Removal services are performed by an
independent contractor, hired by the AOC, which has resulted in
considerable savings, improved service, and a much better final
product.
CAPITOL BUILDINGS
The Capitol Police have requested an off-site delivery/
screening center, projected cost of $22 million, to be used to
accommodate the projected vehicle load of over 200 inspections
per day.
Question. Has this facility been designed?
Response. No. The facility has not yet been designed. The
facility as proposed is based on the 1999 United States Capitol
Police Master Plan. This Master Plan is currently being updated
to reflect modifications to the requirements due to the
incidents of September 11, 2001. The revised Master Plan will
be received in June 2002.
Question. Have you selected some potential construction
locations?
Response. Part of the effort of the Master Plan update
includes the identification of potential sites for this
facility utilizing the guidelines identified by the USCP such
as proximity to the Capitol complex.
Question. What is the basis for your $7 million estimate
for the purchase of the property?
Response. The $7 million estimate was based on land
identified during the development of the 1999 USCP Master Plan
with escalation based on information obtained on the increase
in prices in property adjacent to the Capitol complex.
CAPITOL GROUNDS
You have a base of $200 thousand for shuttle bus services.
Question. How many people use these buses daily?
Response. The shuttle bus service currently transports
approximately 40 passengers daily. The service picks up the
majority of its passengers during the morning rush hours and
the afternoon rush hours. During the day, fewer passengers
board the buses.
Question. Is the use of these buses limited only to AOC
employees?
Response. Passengers on the AOC shuttle bus service must be
Members of the House of Representatives, Senators, staff of the
House and Senate, and staff of the Architect of the Capitol.
Prior to boarding, passengers must show the shuttle drivers a
current and valid legislative identification tag.
Visitors are not allowed on the shuttle bus.
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS
SAFETY PROGRAMS
A GS-12 safety specialist position has been requested to assist the
safety specialist position funded in 2001 to implement and oversee 40
or more safety programs scheduled to be implemented in the near future.
Question. What are these safety programs?
Response. The following is a list of the 43 safety programs. The 12
programs shown in bold are approved programs, which are currently being
implemented. The remaining programs will be implemented between FY 2002
and FY 2004.
FY 2001: Hazard Communication; Confined Space, Personal Protective
Equipment; Bloodborne Pathogens; Fall Protection; Respiratory
Protection; Lead; Asbestos; Lockout & Tagout; Electrical Safety;
Scaffolding; Machine Guarding; Hand & Portable Power Tools; Welding,
Cutting & Brazing; Materials Handling; Forklift Operations; Manlift
Operations; Hazardous Materials & Spill Response; Spray Finishing
Procedures; Trenching & Excavation; Radiation Safety; Working & Walking
Surfaces; Medical Surveillance; Portable Fire Extinguishers; Hearing
Conservation; Recordkeeping & Reporting; Safety Color Coding, Labeling
& Marking; Contractor Safety; Air Quality & Dust Control; Mishap
Prevention & Reporting; Hazard Reporting; Hazard Abatement &
Inspections; Workplace Emergency Preparedness; Ergonomics; Industrial
Safety; Data Processing Facilities; Hazardous Waste; Office Safety; CPR
& First Aid; Cable Fault Locating & Telecommunications; Evaluation of
New Products Procedures & Equipment; Special Operations Requirements;
Silica.
Question. If you have not implemented these programs, how have you
determined that you need additional staff?
Response. Currently, the Safety Specialist in the jurisdiction is
responsible for implementation of the programs, developing Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP's) for the specific jurisdictional
responsibilities, establishing training requirements and developing
tracking systems for record keeping. Additionally, amongst several
other safety duties, the Safety Specialist conducts safety inspections,
monitors work place safety, handles any indoor air quality issues and
establishes and tracks hazardous material operations. His
responsibilities are primarily involved with the day shift in HOB
employees.
This new position would have the same responsibilities but would be
responsible to the safety program implementations for the night shift
HOB employees. The majority of this staff is predominantly comprised of
laborers and custodians who historically have the highest rate of
injuries. This position would serve as a focal point for safety program
implementation and execution of all aspects of safety awareness and
training for the night time staff.
LIBRARY BUILDING AND GROUNDS
There is a request of $1.6 million to begin for replacement of
windows at the Library buildings that could cost as much as $47
million. We recently completed a restoration and renovation project of
two of those buildings that cost $81.5 million.
Question. How can it cost $47 million to replace windows?
Response. As a result of the Blast CADD study, the Capitol Police
have indicated that all windows on Capitol Hill be replaced with
``Level D, 10 PSI (pounds per square inch)'' blast resistant windows.
This would require replacement of every window on all LOC buildings.
The windows would have \3/8\" laminated glass with heavy duty frames
and would be bolted to the building structure every eight inches around
the perimeter of each window. A very detailed cost estimate has been
prepared for the Cannon Building and costs for the other buildings on
Capitol Hill have been extrapolated from this estimate.
Speaking of the restoration and renovation project (R&R) you are
requesting $2.2 million to repair the roof under the east parking lot
of the Jefferson building.
Question. Why was this not part of the original R&R project on the
Jefferson and Adams buildings?
Response. The scope of the R&R project was developed in 1982,
designed in 1984 and construction started in 1986. This leaking problem
was found long after the R&R project was complete.
We have a request before us for $100 thousand for planning and
program development for an estimated $22 million state of the art
warehouse facility at Fort Meade to have copyright deposits.
Question. Considering you can't seem to complete the book storage
facility, what makes you believe you can build a state of the art
warehouse facility?
Response. Both the AOC and the LOC have learned a great deal during
the design and construction of Module 1 of the Book Storage Facility.
We have also spent considerable time analyzing our deficiencies on
Module 2 and making plans for future projects at the Ft. Meade site. We
are recruiting a Ft. Meade project Manager to be dedicated to these Ft.
Meade projects and we are partnering with the Baltimore District of the
Corps of Engineers to manage the design and construction process.
[The following questions from Mr. Moran were submitted to
be answered for the record:]
Off-Site Delivery and Screening Center
Question. What is the cost of the Capitol Police off-site delivery
and screening project?
Response. The current projected cost for this facility is $22M.
This estimate is based on the 1999 USCP Master Plan as a basis and was
escalated for time extension and the anticipated dramatic increase in
land values in the general area. The USCP Master Plan is currently
being updated and the update will be submitted in June 2002.
Question. What work does this project entail?
Response. The facility identified in the 1999 Master Plan is a 7-
bay facility for screening of all deliveries to the House, Senate and
Capitol Buildings, as well as the Supreme Court and general mail
deliveries to the Library of Congress. The estimated cost includes
design and construction costs for the facility including furnishings as
well as the land acquisition costs.
Question. Does this request include any specialized security
equipment that will be used in the facility? Or, will we see
corresponding requests in future budgets of the U.S. Capitol Police
(USCP)?
Response. This question has been passed to the Capitol Police as
following within their jurisdiction.
Question. Will this facility also alleviate any of the USCP's
overcrowding issues they are currently facing?
Response. This facility will only resolve overcrowding issues
currently being experienced at the existing off-site delivery center.
Thursday, April 25, 2002.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
WITNESS
DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Taylor. We will now take up the Fiscal Year 2003 budget
request of the Congressional Budget Office. We have the
Director, Dan Crippen, with us today. Good morning, sir. We
understand that Barry Anderson, the Deputy Director, will not
be with us.
Mr. Crippen. Barry has been called to testify before the
House Budget Committee, so he will not be able to join me.
Mr. Taylor. The budget request we will consider for the
Congressional Budget Office for Fiscal Year 2003 is
$32,390,000. This is an increase of 1.6 above the enacted level
and includes a request to increase the FTE's from 232 to 236.
Your prepared statement has been distributed to the Members
of the committee and will be inserted in the record, if you
would like to make a short statement, then we will move
directly to our line of questions.
[The prepared statement of the CBO Director follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, I will forego any opening
statement on the budget, but I would like to take a few seconds
just to say that since my term is up at the end of this year,
this is likely my last appearance before this committee. I
thank you and the committee for all the support that you have
given the CBO over the years and certainly during my tenure.
And we are very appreciative. We are a small band over in the
Ford Building, but we certainly appreciate the support the
committee has given us.
Mr. Taylor. Some of your major projections for fiscal year
2003 are to update older work station hardware and software and
automate key administrative processes. You have not requested
any additional funding. Are we to assume that you have
sufficient funds to carry out your objectives.
Mr. Crippen. Yes, sir. We have moved from the House
Information System at its request to another vendor for
computer processing, and ultimately we will bring that back in-
house on PCs, but in the process we are saving money.
Mr. Taylor. Can we anticipate a base reduction next fiscal
year?
Mr. Crippen. We will have one more year of savings as we
convert to using the PCs. After doing so, it will be $115,000
of contract spending that we will not be needing.
Mr. Taylor. I have some questions that I will submit to be
answered for the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Technological Projects
Question. What are your costs estimates for these projects?
Response. About $150,000 is budgeted for workstation hardware
replacement, and a little over $50,000 is planned for workstation
software replacement. Approximately $227,000 is requested for
automating key administrative processes.
Question. What administrative processes and other internal services
have you recently automated?
Response. A variety of data and service delivery systems are now
provided by the new CBO Intranet, such as systems for supply inventory
and distribution, conference room reservation, job applicant tracking,
project tracking, and purchase requisition & procurement. We also
created a new system for tracking telephone services.
Question. What is your estimate of the cost savings that have been
realized as a result of these changes?
Response. Automating administrative processes does not necessarily
translate into easily measurable cost savings. However, it does result
in faster and more efficient ways of doing business that improve the
quality and success of our operation. Still, there have been recent
examples when legacy systems have been replaced and yielded cost
savings as well as the other benefits. For example, the new procurement
system has allowed us to reduce our contractual payments for
administrative support by over $25,000, and the implementation of the
new applicant tracking system will save us upwards of $10,000 per year
for temporary administrative support that will no longer be needed. We
also expect better management of office supplies and monitoring of
telecommunications to reduce costs for these items.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
Working with the Architect of the Capitol you have developed a
range of strategies to address your space problems. We understand that
the architect has spent approximately $15,000 towards some basic
improvements.
Question. What are your space problems and how have you addressed
them?
Response. Prior to 2000, about 40 professional staff occupied
inadequate office space. For example, we had larger spaces divided by
bookcases for three or four professional staff to share, smaller spaces
that required walking through other offices to enter, and workstations
in hallways and open common areas. We also had fewer workstations than
needed for our authorized staffing. It became necessary to find
creative solutions to accommodate current staff and recruit high-
quality staff from an increasingly competitive market. By redesigning
our current space and installing modular wall and furniture systems, we
have been able to make better use of the interior spaces that were
originally designed for a much larger support staff. In this
renovation, we have also been able to absorb additional FTEs without
requesting additional space.
Question. How much has CBO spent on space improvements?
Response. In fiscal year 2000, we obligated $86,211 for movable
modular wall systems and $23,315 for modular furniture, and in fiscal
year 2001, we obligated $159,143 for modular wall systems and $181,894
for modular furniture.
Question. What are the cost estimates and time frame required for
completion of the program?
Response. We estimate that total spending on wall systems will be
approximately $137,000 and on modular furniture, approximately $77,000
in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2003, we expect to complete the
renovation, spending $95,000 on wall systems and $67,000 on modular
furniture.
BUDGET PROPOSAL
Mr. Taylor. The President has proposed a government-wide
initiative to transfer accountability for accruing retirement
benefits and post-retirement health benefits costs from the
Office of Personnel Management to individual agencies. The
costs to the Legislative Branch this fiscal year, excluding the
Senate, is $112 million. Do you have any observations or
recommendations regarding this proposal.
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, we have been asked by a number
of committees to look at the proposal, analyze not only its
costs but the appropriateness of this kind of accounting for
this purpose. We are within days, I think, of issuing that
report. And I will certainly, both in writing and otherwise,
report back to you the conclusions we have reached.
Visiting scholars' program
Mr. Taylor. You are requesting four additional FTEs and
$455,000 to expand your visiting scholars' program. What is the
current number of FTEs allocated to this program?
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, over the course of the years, we
have used one or two FTEs a year roughly for visiting scholars.
What I would like to accomplish before I leave, frankly, is to
have a more permanent visiting scholar program--which would be
nationally prominent--in which we could solicit folks to come
join us for a period of time. We have found it to be extremely
valuable to get folks in for a limited period of time to give
us new ideas, new criticism, new work; and many of the best
minds, when it comes to public policy and economics, are
tenured professors who have other careers they have been
unwilling to give up to become full-time permanent employees of
the Federal Government. So this allows a way to invite them on
a sabbatical or for some other term to come help us. And our
request this year includes making that a formal program for
which we would have the designated slots and solicit requests
for scholars to come join us for a year or so.
Mr. Taylor. What is the time period, in which each
individual participates in the program?
Mr. Crippen. Just offhand, I can tell you we have had
people there as little as three months (and we will have one
again this summer) and as long as 18. But my guess is that most
of the time, the period would be 12 months or less. Summers are
easier for these folks who are in academia. But 12 months.
Mr. Taylor. Are they eligible for any personal benefits?
Mr. Crippen. Many of them, if they come from other
Government institutions, could continue to receive benefits
from their primary employer. But anyone who is on our payroll
for over a year would otherwise automatically get full
benefits.
RECRUITMENT BONUSES AND AWARDS PROGRAM
Mr. Taylor. In your recruitment bonus program, you are
asking, as part of your goals to strengthen that program. You
would like to expand your awards program and the utilization of
recruitment bonuses. What guidelines or policies determine
whether an individual receives a recruitment bonus?
Mr. Crippen. Largely, Mr. Chairman, we only offer
recruitment bonuses in areas that we have had a very difficult
time filling. It may have been a specific slot for which we
have made a number of offers or an area like health care, where
resources are very short and in much demand. So the criterion
in general is use of recruitment bonuses only in those places
where we have had difficulty finding people in the past. We
compete just in Washington with the Federal Reserve and the
World Bank, both of whom pay significantly more than we do. And
sometimes a few thousand dollars in cash makes a difference to
a newly minted Ph.D.--to either move or start a new life in
Washington.
Mr. Taylor. I have some questions I will submit to be
asnwered for the record regarding this issue.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Recruitment Bonuses and Awards Program
Question. What is the dollar range of the bonuses?
Response. Given our current bonus cap, we have generally attempted
to keep bonuses as small as possible, with a target range of $3,000 to
$4,000. Thus far in fiscal year 2002, the range has been from a low of
$2,000 to a high of $5,000, averaging approximately $3,580.
Question. How many have you authorized to date?
Response. From the inception in fiscal year 2000 through April
2002, we awarded 19 recruitment bonuses.
Question. Do you have a retention bonus program?
Response. We do not have a retention bonus plan. However, our
system of rewarding strong performance with merit pay and performance
bonuses adds to our ability to retain our most talented staff.
You state that one-third of the staff was recognized in fiscal year
2001 under the awards program. These awards were given to outstanding
performers.
Question. What was the amount of the average award?
Response. CBO has three types of performance awards. Star Awards
are spot awards given for strong performance on a specific project.
Director's Awards are given annually at the CBO anniversary celebration
in recognition of exceptional achievement in that year or for sustained
outstanding performance. Management Leadership Awards are the CBO
analogue to SES bonuses. In fiscal year 2001, the average for all of
these awards was $1,924.
Question. What are the lowest and highest amounts that any one
individual could receive?
Response. In fiscal year 2001, the lowest amount was $200 for a
Star Award and the highest was $8,000 for a Management Leadership
Award.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Mr. Taylor. You have requested two administrative
provisions. One provides for the ability to detail CBO
employees, and the other provides authority to enter into
procurements without advertising. To whom would your employees
be detailed and what would be gained as a result of these
details?
Mr. Crippen. First, Mr. Chairman, while the authority
would be broader, Federal agencies are certainly the first
place that we would like people to spend some time. We rely now
on agencies for a lot of data and some analysis, many in the
executive branch, but we do not have experience in all of those
agencies and how they operate.
Secondly, institutions of higher education; some of our
folks are more academic-oriented. We have 74 Ph.D.s, and going
back to an institution or work with another professor would be
the second highest priority we would have.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Moran, do you have questions?
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION CAPABILITY
Mr. Moran. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I serve on the
Budget Committee. Mr. Crippen knows, we call on CBO all the
time, Republican and Democrat alike. He has been
extraordinarily helpful. I do not know how he does all he does
with the limited resources he has to draw upon. I am very much
concerned over the fact that CBO has had trouble in competing
for the kinds of top-flight financial economists, the health
analysts, the budget people that you need to give us the best
information. So I would like for you to elaborate a little bit
more on your recruitment and retention capability, because I
know you are competing against institutions like the World Bank
and the Federal Reserve. That is the quality level that you
need and that we demand, and yet the others seem to be paying
more. The chairman mentioned a visiting scholar program and
alluded to the performance and bonus awards. What else can we
do to assure that CBO gets the best top-flight talent?
Mr. Crippen. I appreciate that question, Mr. Moran. When I
started this a little over three years ago, we were down about
20 from our authorized strength and funded level, which for 200
people is a fair number. So one of the first things that Barry
and I did was form a recruitment program. We hired someone to
help us. We never had a formal recruitment program until the
late 1990s, but having one has paid off in spades, frankly. We
have a terrific woman who put it together. We are now going to
more institutions and getting a more diverse workforce because
of that. In the past, we tended to recruit where everybody came
from. And so a guy who was from Harvard went back to Harvard,
and we recruited people that looked like him. We have expanded
that considerably to good end for both the workforce and
diversity. So at the moment, I can tell you we are staffed up.
We still have a couple of problem areas in getting Ph.D.s, as
you cited: specifically, financial economics and health care.
We are employing things other than trying to put more money
into filling such positions because obviously we are limited.
We could not compete with the World Bank on dollars alone. The
motivation has to be the quality of the work, the excitement of
being involved with the public policy of the Congress close up.
And on that, we are doing a better job of selling people. Part
of that is going out and recruiting early--not early in the
year but early in the cycle of Ph.D. development. If you get
people who are interested in public policy and give them an
ability to come to Washington as an intern maybe before they
have been a Ph.D. (or their professor has been with us for a
year doing something), it gets them interested in the kinds of
issues we deal with, and it is growing the crop of people to be
interested in what we do. And I think that more powerful than
money, ultimately, is the quality of the work. Incentives are
very important for individuals in certain cases, and we have
asked for a slight increase in order to provide them. But at
the moment, I think it is not just a matter of dollars. We have
to show we are a better place to work than the Fed. Some days
that is hard to do, but others, it is pretty easy to do.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Crippen. As far as I am
concerned, you are doing a very good job, and I hear that from
both Republicans and Democrats alike. That is the real test.
Mr. Crippen. I know it is not unanimous.
Mr. Moran. It may not be unanimous, but the people I
respect the most believe so. So I will not have any further
questions. Thank you. I have some questions that I will submit
to be answered for the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Quesions Submitted for the Record by James P. Moran
Question. CBO has found it increasingly difficult to hire needed
experts and prohibitively expensive to use consultants or contracts for
some major tasks or longer term assignments. Most of the needed
experts--financial economists, health economists, etc.--are in high
demand by the private sector and other prestigious government agencies,
Federal Reserve, World Bank, etc. Could you elaborate on how your
visiting scholars program works. How would this program change if
additional resources were available?
Response. CBO has an extremely broad mission, which requires it to
have experts on virtually every government program and endeavor, as
well as technical experts in finance, econometrics, tax analysis,
macroeconomics, health, and many other areas. There are some areas that
are so specialized and some in which professionals are in such high
demand, that CBO can neither attract nor afford to retain those experts
on a permanent basis. We fill these needs in a variety of ways,
including hiring consultants; contracting out highly specialized tasks;
aggressively recruiting such experts; and, from time to time, bringing
on board academic experts for limited term appointments.
Since 1999, we have experimented with limited term appointments of
midcareer scholars. We wish to expand this program to include up to
four scholars concurrently, one for each of its most technical
divisions. To do so, we are requesting an increase in our staff ceiling
from 232 to 236. Scholars, who stay from 12 to 18 months, bring a high
degree of specialization and cutting-edge skills. Although such
specialists may be unwilling to permanently relocate to Washington,
they are often interested in temporary assignments at CBO. Two recent
scholars brought particularly useful econometric modeling and financial
analysis expertise, which was invaluable in our most difficult modeling
projects, including such tasks as estimating the benefits provided by
housing GSEs and improving our economic forecasting.
Question. I understand that you have some authority to set aside 1
percent from your salaries and expenses account ($190,000) for
performance and recruitment bonuses: one-quarter ($47,500) for
recruitment and three-quarters for performance awards. Would you
support increasing the amount that could be set aside for this program?
Should the one-quarter/three-quarters limitation be applied?
Response. Yes, we would support an increase in this authority and
would ask that the current cap on the recruitment bonuses be
eliminated. The increase we are asking for (+0.25 percent of our pay
base) would add approximately $55,000 to the overall bonus fund, and we
would reserve as much of that increase as necessary for recruitment
bonuses. This authority has been limited to 1 percent of payroll since
its inception and is used to provide both recruitment incentives and a
variety of performance awards. The recruitment bonuses were further
limited to one-quarter of the 1 percent allocated, providing $47,000 in
fiscal year 2001 for that purpose. This restriction meant that most of
the bonuses given were small (a few thousand dollars), were used very
sparingly, and were targeted almost exclusively to specialists who are
difficult to attract. Nonetheless, we used the entire budget last year
and could have used more, particularly for new Ph.D.s and health
specialists, for whom our starting salaries are not always competitive.
Question. How much flexibility do other legislative branch agencies
have to use for their bonus programs? How about executive branch
agencies?
Response. The Library of Congress (LoC), the Congressional Research
Service (CRS), and the General Accounting Office (GAO) generally have
and use all the same authorities to give performance and recruitment
bonuses as executive branch agencies.
Executive branch agencies may pay recruitment bonuses up to 25
percent of base pay. CBO used nearly all of the amount allotted for
recruitment bonuses in fiscal year 2001. The amount provided for 10
bonuses averaged less than 6.5 percent of the starting salaries. For
example, in hiring a health analyst at a base pay of $70,000, the
executive branch could pay up to $17,500 in recruitment bonus, whereas
the highest recruitment bonus we have paid to a health analyst at CBO
is $8,000.
Providing performance incentive bonuses is also an area in which
CBO lags behind the executive branch. Performance awards for non-SES
staff in the executive branch may range up to 10 or 20 percent of
salary. The largest nonmanagement award at CBO last year was $2,500,
far less than 10 percent of the average salary at CBO. SES bonuses in
the executive branch may range from 5 to 20 percent of base pay and the
average SES bonus in 1999 (the most recent year for which data were
available) was $9,844. President Bush awards can be as much 35 percent
of base pay. CBO's Management Leadership Awards in fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2000 averaged approximately 6 percent of the average salary
for managers.
Question. CBO has been accused of being too insular and too guarded
against outside perspectives and ideas. While I would object to any
cozy relationship being established, how do you strike a balance
between being influenced by outside groups that have a particular
agenda, e.g., dynamic scoring, etc., and risking familiarity or an
understanding of new perspectives in budget analysis?
Response. CBO has always believed that it can provide objective
budgetary analysis and still maintain a strong, two-way communication
with the analytical and policy community in which it operates. Our
staff are encouraged to attend professional meetings where they present
papers, sit on panels, and interact with their colleagues. Attending
these meetings simultaneously exposes CBO's methods to outside experts
and our staff to the latest research in their fields.
Internally, the CBO review process is rigorous, focuses strongly on
the clarity and rigor of the analysis, and strives to present all
points of view on an issue. Moreover, CBO reports and studies are often
submitted to outside experts for peer review. In addition to meetings
of our Panel of Economic Advisers, which occur twice a year to review
our major economic and budget projections, we regularly hold forums on
topics that present special analytical challenges, such as long-term
modeling, prescription drug pricing, and high-cost Medicare patients.
To provide more transparency, all assumptions are presented clearly
in reports and studies. Since our publications are distributed to a
wide spectrum of technical experts, assumptions and analyses are open
to critique. And we expect that by increasing our use of visiting
scholars, we will bring on board the skills and expertise needed to
keep our methodologies up to date.
THE WORK OF CBO
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to attack Mr.
Crippen vociferously and vigorously because I think it may help
him. However, I am constrained, like Mr. Moran, to say I think
Mr. Crippen has done an outstanding job for the Congress and
the American people. The questions I was going to ask were
essentially along the lines that you asked, and Mr. Moran, in
terms of his recruitment and retention of the kind of people we
need to give us the soundest advice. I think that the major
problem confronting the country when you get beyond the specter
of terrorism and homeland and national security is the fiscal
posture of this Nation and the management of the Nation's
finances. I would tell you that I believe we are on a path that
will put this country in a critically bad position 10 years
from now if we do not divert from it. We have differences on
this, and it is not his job to argue the policy, but to argue
what are the ramifications of our policy. But if we do not have
honest advice in dealing with that issue, our country is going
to be in trouble.
I think Mr. Crippen and his folks have given their honest
analysis and took on what the result of what policies are and
what is the present economic status, to the extent that we can
foresee for the future. I think that has been very important
and I thank you, Dan, for that. Your service will be
appreciated by most, and we wish you the very best in the
coming year as you continue your duties, and in the future as
well.
Mr. Crippen. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. I have a question I will submit to be answered
for the record.
[The question and response follow:]
Question Submitted for the Record by Steny H. Hoyer
Question. You are requesting an increase in the limits on your
recruitment and performance awards that were originally established
when you received authority to make such awards. Please elaborate on
why you think this change is necessary and the impact the proposed
change would have on your budget.
Response. The requested increase in authorization and funding will
allow us to be more competitive in compensation practices, therefore
improving CBO's recruitment and retention of talented staff. In
particular, it will enable CBO to more readily compete with executive
branch agencies, where recruitment bonuses can be as high as 25 percent
of base pay. CBO used nearly all of the amount allotted for recruitment
bonuses in fiscal year 2001. The amount provided for 10 bonuses
averaged less than 6.5 percent of the starting salaries.
To increase CBO's authority to pay recruitment bonuses without
adding to the total funding available would detract from our ability to
reward strong staff with incentive bonuses, thereby having an adverse
impact on our retention and staffing overall. Providing incentive
bonuses is an area in which CBO also lags behind the executive branch.
The lack of additional funding would make these bonuses unsustainable
even at the current less-than-competitive rates.
Increasing the bonus limit to 1.25 percent and ending the earmark
for recruitment awards would give CBO an additional $55,000--for a
total bonus budget of $272,000--and allow it to spend more of that
total on recruitment.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Crippen, and we appreciate your
service and your report here today. The committee stands in
recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
HON. JAY EAGEN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HON. JEFF TRANDAHL, CLERK OF THE HOUSE
HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS
STEVEN McNAMARA, INSPECTOR GENERAL
GERALDINE GENNET, GENERAL COUNSEL
JOHN MILLER, LAW REVISION COUNSEL
M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
DR. JOHN EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
Opening Statement--Fiscal Year 2003 Budget
Mr. Taylor. Good morning. The Subcommittee on the
Legislative Branch will come to order. Today we begin our
hearings on the budget requests of the various agencies of the
legislative branch on their fiscal year 2003 budgets. It is our
hope to complete these hearings, the subcommittee markup, full
committee markup and floor action by the end of June. Our
Chairman has said he hopes to have all these subcommittees
completed before we break for the 4th of July.
The total appropriation request that will be considered by
the subcommittee is $2.6 billion. This is $112 million less
than the amount reflected in the President's budget request. In
accordance with committee-wide policy, the amounts requested
for accruing the cost of retirement and health benefits has
been removed from each individual budget request, therefore the
amended increase is $108.8 million, or 4.3 percent, above the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
In accordance with comity between the two Houses we will
not consider the budget of the other body. The Senate will
consider its own request. If the Senate items are included, the
total legislative branch request is going to be somewhere in
the $3.4 billion range.
With that in mind, I would like to welcome Mr. LaHood, who
is with us today, and we will have other members coming in as
we continue the hearing.
Mr. Hoyer, we just opened the committee hearings. Do you
have a comment or something to say at this time?
Mr. Hoyer. No.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Taylor. All right. We will move forward. We begin our
hearings this morning with the budget request for the House of
Representatives. The Chief Administrative Officer, assisted by
the Office of Finance, submits the House budget each year to
the Office of Management and Budget. That material is then
included in the President's budget. The House budget request
totals $949.6 million, which is $29.8 million, or about 3.2
percent over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
This request provides funding for the operations of
members' offices, committees, leadership, and the
administrative operations of the House. We want to welcome the
officers of the House today who are with us. Jeff Trandahl, the
Clerk of the House, Wilson Livingood, the Sergeant at Arms, and
Jay Eagen, the Chief Administrative Officer. We also have
Geraldine Gennet, the House General Counsel, John Miller, the
House Law Revision Counsel, M. Pope Barrow, the House
Legislative Counsel, Steve McNamara, the House Inspector
General, and Dr. John Eisold, the Attending Physician.
Before we proceed with our line of questioning, I would
like to thank the officers of the House for the highly
professional manner in which the relocation of the House
operations was completed this past year. You are to be
commended on the fine job you did to assure the continued
operations of the House of Representatives. On behalf of all
Members of the House, I would like to thank you and ask that
you pass the word on to the entire staff.
Mr. Moran has joined us. Would you like to make a comment
before we start?
Mr. Moran. No, go ahead.
Opening Statement
Mr. Taylor. I would like to have the officers recognized
and we will start with Jeff Trandahl. If you would like to make
any comments please do so. Any items that you do not wish to
comment on will be submitted for the record.
Mr. Trandahl. We were told to keep our comments brief here
this morning, so I guess I just want to start and say that what
we greatly appreciate in our office--and I want to say the
other officers--is the support of this subcommittee, especially
during the last 6 months here, which were fairly difficult and
challenging-times that none of us anticipated. And I want to
say that I feel honored and privileged not only to have worked
with the organization that I work with and its people, but I
want to recognize their extraordinary efforts. At the same time
I want to commend the subcommittee for stepping up and being of
incredible support to us during a difficult time. I want to say
I am very proud and honored to work with the gentlemen that I
work with sitting next to me because we really pulled together
and the team that was formed on a very quick, short emergency
situation definitely performed well. So thank you for letting
us appear today.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Mr. Eagen, would you like to make a
comment?
Mr. Eagen. No comments, Mr. Chairman. Our statement has
been submitted for the record.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Eagen. Mr. Livingood, any
comments you would like to make?
Mr. Livingood. My comments have been submitted for the
record, sir, but I would just like to thank the committee and I
would like to thank all of Capitol Hill, the Members, the
staff, for their commitment, their help and their caring since
9/11 and the anthrax incident on October 15th. We could not
have done the job that we have--we, our office and the Capitol
Police--without the commitment and the caring from this
committee and from other committees, and from Members and
staff, and I feel very strongly about that, sir, and I feel it
an honor and a pleasure to serve all of them.
[The prepared statements of the witnesses follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERVIEW OF MAIL OPERATIONS
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Thank all of you gentlemen. This has
been a very trying time. Of course it is not over. We are in
the middle of it. All you have to do is step outside and see
that.
A lot of things are going to be done, changes to be made.
We will have a closed hearing later to examine again some of
the things that we are trying to do to make sure that we are
adequately funded and moving in the wisest direction that we
can contemplate. But I do thank all of you. It has been a tough
time and fortunately we have not sustained any real loss at the
Capitol, and that has been in large measure to your fine work.
We will proceed directly into our questions. Mr. Eagen, the
events of October 15th have caused significant changes in the
House mail operations. What have the changes been and what are
your long range plans?
Mr. Eagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be
beneficial if I put the changes in context by going back to
last fall and quickly reviewing what transpired, because what
has happened since then is directly impacted by last fall.
You recall that October 15th, a Monday, was the day that
the letter was discovered in Senator Daschle's office and the
anthrax contamination was first confirmed. On October 17th, the
leadership of the House made a decision to evacuate all the
House office buildings. That was a Wednesday. The prior Friday,
the House had actually started to quarantine its mail after
having put in place a new sampling system to check for biologic
intrusions into the House mail stream.
On the 18th, the day after the evacuation, the first House
side contamination was found at the P Street offsite X-ray
facility. And on the 21st, contamination of anthrax was
confirmed in the Ford mailroom in the Ford Building.
Over the next few weeks, as the environmental assessment
team conducted its work, additional contamination was found in
the Longworth Building and again in the Ford Building, on the
first floor.
The impact of all those contamination confirmations was
that the Ford mailroom was shut down and a decision has been
made to permanently keep it closed. It is not appropriate to
have that kind of facility in an office building where about
1,000 people work and where the House has its child care
facility.
The House also lost its X-ray capabilities, as did the
Senate, at P Street. In sum, the House lost all of its mail
processing capabilities in those couple of weeks last fall.
In addition, the Postal Service lost the Brentwood
facility, the location for the government mail processing
capability for the Metropolitan Washington Area. So what you
had happen in a couple of weeks time was the virtual
elimination of all the automation and facilities that served
not only the House and the Senate, but basically the government
sector as well.
STERILIZED MAIL
The macro impact was that the Postal Service and the House
postal operations went from having the responsibility to
deliver mail in a speedy and accurate manner to not only trying
to deliver mail in a speedy and accurate manner, but also
deliver sanitized or sterilized mail. It was a new business
mission that did not exist and never had been tried before.
We also got into the business of actually attempting to
store mail. For those weeks when the mail operation was shut
down, both within the Postal Service and here on the House
campus, our facilities and systems weren't designed to store
the mail, they were designed to push the mail through as
quickly as possible. Now you had the Postal Service attempting
to take trailer upon trailer upon trailer of mail and catalog
them and keep them in storage and figure out how to deliver
them at a later date.
The anthrax threats and other biological threats led to a
change in the whole system. On the front end, the White House
put together a task force through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy that recommended and verified irradiation, e-
beamed irradiation, as a sterilization method of the mail. That
is being done by the Postal Service in two facilities, one in
Lima, Ohio, and another one in New Jersey. That is now
shrinking down to one facility in New Jersey.
Here on the House campus, on the back end, we are doing
additional verification sampling to ensure that the
sterilization done by the Postal Service has been effective. We
have brought the mail back onto the campus in stages. It took
the Postal Service and the White House some time to determine
that irradiation was in fact the proper solution and they did
not indicate that they would be ready to use that until late
November.
We did briefings for Members' staff in late November and
the mail flow actually started in early December. Initially we
were receiving simply first class mail and what are called
flats, mail items of this size or smaller.
In January, we went into phase two through a proposal to
start receiving national courier deliveries. By ``national
couriers,'' I mean organizations like UPS and FedEx. In March,
a third phase was put into effect to start receiving Postal
Service parcels and third class mail. All of those have
different associated backlogs associated with them, depending
on how long the mail was shut off and what it requires to
undertake processing through the new systems.
What we are seeing today is that the Postal Service was
forecasting a 7-day turnaround for first class mail basically
from the date of postmark. In reality it is as much as 7 days
to 15 days on the front end. On the back end, once we receive
the mail from the Postal Service, we have been told that it
will take about 4 days for the sampling at the time to take
place. In reality, that is often taking longer when you factor
in weekend time when the labs are not open and constructing the
testing that the House needs to confirm the sterilization of
the mail.
DIGITIZATION OF THE MAIL
For the future, we are investigating a concept called
digitization of the mail, and the hope is that we would be
putting in place a pilot very soon this year to test out
whether this concept is a viable solution for the House.
Basically it would involve that off campus the mail would be
received, opened, a digital picture of the mail would be taken,
and then the mail would be transmitted to offices
electronically, so that for the most part the offices would
never actually get a hard copy of the mail.
Now there is obviously an issue involved in that. We would
have to have authority from the offices to open their mail for
them. There would have to be a separate mail stream for the
hard kinds of items that the offices need to receive that would
still have to be sterilized.
There are still many challenges facing us because we feel
that digitization may have a solution for the House not only on
the security side and sterilization side, but also economies
for offices that if digitization can be hooked into the mail
systems within the offices themselves, the correspondence
management systems, you would actually get your data directly
into your system and be able to respond to your mail more
quickly.
For the long run, I am often asked the question when are we
going to get back to normal, and I always respond and say we
are not going to get ``back'' to normal. We have to move
forward to normal. Last fall changed things irreparably. That
is almost a cliche now, and we are not going to be able to go
back to exactly the way things were last fall, and the
challenge is how do we design them to move forward to speedy
and accurate mail but also safe mail for all the House
customers.
IRRADIATED MAIL/MEDICAL COMPLAINTS
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Eisold, you have done a fine job, not only
keeping me healthy these last number of years, but you did a
fine job in attacking this problem. Could you make a comment
regarding the Postal Service irradiation of mail?
Mr. Moran. Come up to the witness table and use a
microphone.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Dr. Eisold. Although we have nicknamed the irradiated mail,
``fried mail,'' we have taken it very seriously from the start.
When people started to have complaints, we developed a
comprehensive screening protocol. We put it out to all of our
nurses and our physicians and set up a mechanism whereby
anybody who had a complaint or thought they had a complaint
that could be related to the mail could come to us and be
evaluated medically. We could get an epidemiologic history and
try to figure out what the cause of the mail complaints were.
As we marched along in that process, NIOSH also got
involved in doing a scientific study to see if there were any
toxins or substances that were uncommonly seen or had high
levels that could be detrimental to a person's health. That
study went on in parallel with us.
Another thing that went along in parallel is that, although
Mr. Eagen did not go into the details, there were some changes
in the degree to which the mail was irradiated and how it was
handled after it was irradiated. That kicked into place in
January and has been modified since that time, which is
probably why--and then I will get into some of the specifics--
when we tallied all of our numbers, they peaked in late January
and then gradually fell down to a point now where we might get
one or two complaints a week, which quite frankly may be just
background noise and has nothing to do with the mail.
Clinically speaking, what was clear was that the complaints
that people were having were absolutely legitimate and that
some people had red eyes and some people had irritation on
their hands. And as we put this together, we concluded that the
cause of the peoples' complaints was simply that some people
are allergic to by-products of the irradiation on the plastic,
dust etc. People were allergic to certain irritants that they
had on their hands or fumes that got in their eyes.
So we found it to be an allergic phenomenon and not a
significant medical problem. The complaints that we saw mainly
had to do with skin irritation and eye irritation. That clearly
has fallen off tremendously now that we have cleaner mail. When
I say cleaner mail, it is one thing to irradiate mail that is 3
months old and full of dust than to irradiate a piece of mail
that is fairly new in the system. It is also different if you
ventilate the mail in a wide open area after it has been
irradiated to get some of these toxins to flow away. So
procedurally a lot of things have happened.
MEDICAL CONCLUSION
Again, my conclusions were that the symptoms were real but
they were more of an allergic or contact dermatitis type
phenomenon and not a serious medical problem. That may be borne
out by the NIOSH study, which as I said has been going in
parallel and has just come out. They interviewed almost 400
people. They sampled many spots throughout the Capitol and
their results really did not find anything that would qualify
as an environmental contaminant that could account for any
expectation of long-term medical consequences.
So I think that it is a good news/bad news story. It was
bad news that we had some symptoms. It is good news that as we
looked at the whole situation, it has come back towards
baseline, and it appears that the attention to the problems
have helped. Certainly the plans for the future that Mr. Eagen
talks about should even make this less of a problem.
Mr. Taylor. Well, it speaks well for all the staff, your
office and the entire group of you gathered here. I imagine
this is the first urban attack of this nature and you had to
learn a lot of things that you did not know, and you have
learned a great deal about it and you have handled it very
well.
I don't know where else in the world you would go for
experience because this was probably the first major urban use
of that sort of biological disease.
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The Office of Emergency Preparedness has been established
under the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House. Mr.
Trandahl, as Chairman of the board, which oversees this office,
would you bring us up to date on its current status and what
its responsibilities will be?
Mr. Trandahl. Sure. As the subcommittee is aware, during
the supplemental last winter and December, language was
included to create an Office of Emergency Preparedness for the
House. It reports and operates beneath the Speaker and the
Minority Leader. Through the winter we advertised the creation
of a Director for that office. Seventy-four candidates were
identified. More than 20 people were interviewed in the process
and the Speaker and the Minority Leader's office selected a
candidate last month. I am pleased to say that the Director of
that office began working as of this Monday.
As far as the responsibilities of that Office go, they are
basically put in place to help the officers coordinate our own
planning and processes. We have in place what we call the HORT,
the House Officer Recovery Team, along with a large manual that
goes with it. It is to deal with fires, to broken pipes, to
simple issues--to now much more significant issues as we
learned last fall.
The office itself is in place. We are looking forward to
doing some additional hiring for that office in the not too
distant future and get them under way in terms of updating
procedures and processes for the House.
Mr. Taylor. Will all the funding requirements related to
emergency preparedness, other than security, be coordinated and
verified by this office?
Mr. Trandahl. That is probably the most significant
function for this office, to help us to identify weaknesses
and, more importantly, help us to improve our coordination. We
have a lot of good people. That is a great asset here in the
House. There will be things that we will need to add in, but as
we discovered through the two incidents last fall, it is really
a matter of pulling together people and coordinating people as
quickly as possible to respond to situations. So yes.
CURATORIAL STAFF
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Jeff, what is the status of your
office's activities relative to creating a historical and
curatorial staff in the Office of the Clerk?
Mr. Trandahl. As I discussed at length last time with this
subcommittee, I feel very strongly personally, that the House
has been underrepresented and underserved when it comes to
historical and curatorial activities here in the Capitol and on
the House side of the complex. Ms. Kaptur, in particular, has
raised that time and time again in terms of concern about the
House collection, identifying inventory, preserving, and
maintaining it.
Fortunately, with the support of this subcommittee, and the
SubCommittee on House Administration, we have now been able to
go from basically a staff of three people to now a staff of
eight. We have just added the first curator to the House,
compared to nine on the Senate side, and we are hoping to add
some more resources here again this year. As well, we have just
proposed to the Committee on House Administration to separate
that office out and create an Office of History and
Preservation, which would take on the curatorial, archiving,
and historical functions for the House.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
We are now making great progress. We are in the midst of
doing several different projects, whether it is inventorying
actual items in the House collection in the Capitol, to trying
to work now with the Senate. The Senate has already begun a
project where they have identified all the historical items in
the Senate half of the Capitol building. The interesting part
of their project is we found a lot of things that were
purchased and brought into the House collection that somehow
found their way to migrate to the Senate. Hopefully we will be
able to engage in conversations and maybe bring a few of those
things back to the House.
Mr. Taylor. Are we working to coordinate both in getting
those items back as well as with the Senate Sergeant at Arms
and staff to coordinate any tours that we give? Whenever we
take guests into the Capitol, they do not understand the break
between the Senate, the House, the old Senate Chamber, and the
old Supreme Court, which formerly was the old Senate Chamber in
the beginning. We like to take people through that, as well as
the things in the House. Can we coordinate things so that it is
much easier to do? Can we contract for one person perhaps, in
the House side, or hire a curator or someone so that we get the
ability to go throughout the Capitol complex at one time rather
than having to contact people to open, especially after hours,
which is the best time to tour.
Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Taylor, that is a big focus of this
staff, to help not only do research back and to determine the
history, but to help document and start creating publications,
signage and information for people, so when you are giving a
tour, not only do you know the location of items but you also
know accurately the history of the items.
The Architect of the Capitol will be appearing later in
front of the subcommittee and can talk much more extensively
about the Capitol Visitor Center. But a lot of our activities
will help complement what we are trying to do at the Visitor
Center with the tours to enhance the visitor experience and
giving more information relative to many items in this
building--items that probably many of you in this room aren't
familiar with, or even exist, and their history.
Mr. Taylor. Probably not. I appreciate what is being done
and it is one of the reasons that I supported the Visitor
Center in the early phases, because it will give an opportunity
to students, and others, to come in before they come to the
item, rather than just to walk through and assume they are
going to get by osmosis the knowledge when they walk by an
item.
But it is going to be some time before we do that, and
perhaps we can coordinate something for the Members that are
still giving tours.
Mr. Trandahl. Okay, we will work on that.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. And about getting our items
back from the Senate, will your curator be working with the
Senate to coordinate in that area?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, the interesting part about the Capitol
here is there are three separate collections of historical
items. There is a House collection, a Senate collection and
then a joint collection that the Architect oversees. So we are
working with all three groups of people to basically coordinate
and identify and inventory all the items.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I would like to continue with you,
but let me break at this moment and ask if Jim has any
questions before we go further. Mr. Moran? Also I have some
questions that I will submit at this time to be answered for
the record.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Financial Management System
The CAO'S budget request is $99.9 million ($99,863,000). This is
$9.3 million, or 8.6%, below the enacted level. The request includes
$3.2 million for ``financial systems replacement.'' The House, as a
member of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council, should be
working alongside the other legislative branch agencies in an effort to
share a common financial management system.
Question. Is the House working with the Council (LBFMC) to achieve
a common financial management system?
Response. The CAO attends quarterly LBFMC meetings in which
Legislative Branch entities share information on current efforts
underway in their organizations to begin preparations for replacing
their financial systems. The group has agreed that only systems meeting
common Federal government functionality requirements, as defined and
tested by the Joint Financial Management and Improvement Program
(JFMIP), should be considered. Selecting one financial management
system to meet all Legislative Branch entity requirements may be worth
exploring, but compliance with JFMIP requirements will ensure the
financial system selected by an entity contains the same basic core
functionality, such as the U.S. Treasury Standard General Ledger
(USSGL), that could enable common data to be extracted and consolidated
for the Legislative Branch. Additionally, the CAO has included GAO and
the LOC on its financial system replacement steering committee.
Question. Have you selected a system?
Response. No. The House is currently evaluating the results of a
market analysis which indicates that viable vendor solutions are
available that meet House functional requirements. One of the systems
surveyed is being considered by other Legislative Branch entities.
Should House stakeholders approve the CAO to proceed forward with an
acquisition, various criteria such as acquisition cost, annual
operating costs, ability to meet unique critical House requirements
will be used in selecting a solution.
Question. Does the House have such unique requirements that a
common system could not be utilized?
Response. The House does have certain unique requirements. For
example funds are authorized on a Legislative Year for each Member and
Committee for which there must be proper accounting. Such funds are
appropriated on a fiscal year basis as well as 15 and 27 months for
Committees.
There is also a specific statute that has the appropriated funds
canceled within a three-year period whereas with most other agencies,
funds are available for a five-year period before funds cancel and must
be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Question. What financial improvements will the new system provide?
Response. The new system will improve and integrate financial and
administrative support provided to House Members, Committees and other
House entities. These entities will have real time access to their
financial data available at their desktops. This means that a Member
will know the status of their account during the year. The new system
will be more user friendly and easier to navigate. The current
financial system is an outdated mainframe based system whereas the new
system will use new and advanced technologies that meet the House's
needs and will consolidate aging subsidiary systems (legacy systems).
Question. What is the estimate of the total cost of the system?
Response. Cost outlays are estimated to be between $11.3 million
and $14.8 million for the acquisition and implementation of the system
and between $10.7 and $13.7 for 5 years of operational costs. This cost
estimate is based on an analysis of information provided in the Market
Analysis completed in March 2002 and currently under review. It is
important to note that these estimates exclude any additional hardware
and software or annual maintenance costs associated with backup
capabilities. We do not own our current FFS system, but outsource with
the Department of Interior (DOI), so this function is currently done by
our vendor in Denver and is part of the overall annual contract.
However, this function will become a house responsibility with the
acquisition of a new system. It is best to estimate backup costs during
the acquisition phase of a project.
Question. What is your time frame for system implementation?
Response. Assuming that an acquisition document is released by
August 2003, implementation would occur during Fiscal Year 2006.
Question. What will be the annual operating cost of the system?
Response. The annual operating cost of the new financial system is
estimated to be between $2.1 and $2.6 million. This estimate excludes
any amount for backup capability as previously mentioned.
Question. What backup will there be for system operations?
Response. Currently, DOI, our contractor performs the back up
function. Once the House implements its own financial system, the
backup function will become a CAO responsibility and will be another
consideration for the alternate data center.
Wide Area Network
The CAO has requested $4.9 million for a ``Wide Area Network''.
Question. Can you tell us about this project?
Response. A Wide Area Network (WAN) is a geographically dispersed
telecommunications network. The House's WAN project provides the House
community with a highly reliable, fault tolerant, and high performing
``highway'' to information services inside (e.g., House campus, Member
Offices) and outside (e.g., Member district offices) of the House. Key
areas within this project include:
Member to district office ``Flagship'' (frame relay/DSL)
connections at 256K speeds
Monitoring and diagnostics for service issues and problems
Design, installation, maintenance, and documentation of
the House's WAN (frame relay, private lines, Integrated Services
Digital Network (ISDN), remote dial and broadband (Digital Subscriber
Line (DSL), Virtual Private Network (VPN), cable)
Lifecycle replacements and/or upgrades for supporting
hardware and software infrastructure
High speed access to the Internet through the House
Intranet
In fiscal year 2001, House Information Resources began the upgrade
of Member Office Flagship connections to district offices from 56k to
256k. This increase in connection speed allows Member Office staff to
access information more quickly, therefore increasing opportunities for
efficiency. As of mid April 2002, 192 district offices had been
completed and the remaining district offices are slated for upgrade by
the end of May 2002.
Question. Will this be the total cost of the network?
Response. No. The $4.9 million is in essence the annual sustainment
cost associated with leasing and supporting data connections at
anticipated speeds between the House campus and district offices and
House business partners. If connection speeds remained relatively
stable from one year to the next, we could expect our annual costs for
the WAN to remain at or around $4.9 million. However, as Member Office
requirements for faster data line connections increase between their
Washington, D.C. and district offices, as well as expectations for
faster and better connections to the Internet from the House network,
the associated sustainment costs will probably increase to accommodate
these higher levels of service.
Question. What are the annual costs associated with the Network?
Response. Practically the entire $4.9M is considered annual costs
associated with the WAN. Specific sustainment (annual cost) items that
comprise this amount include:
Thousands
440 Flagship data lines (1 per MO)............... $3,221
Data lines for Internet access................... 630
Infrastructure data lines........................ 505
Lifecycle replacement of ``end of life'' routers. 150
Cisco hardware and software maintenance.......... 166
Sustainment contractor support................... 150
As required equipment (maintenance/parts)........ 82
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total (Non Personnel)................................. 4,904
As stated previously, as the requirement for faster data line
connections increases, the annual costs associated with this project
will also increase to address these increased service levels.
ADDITIONAL FTE'S
The office of the CAO has requested an additional 36 FTE'S.
Question. Where will the 36 additional staff for the CAO be
deployed?
Response. Additional staff for the CAO will be deployed in the
House Information Resources (HIR) area and the Immediate Office of the
CAO.
Question. What will be the duties and responsibilities required of
the additional staff?
Response. The events of September and October 2001 have
demonstrated the House's dependency on reliable information technology
as it conducts business and Members staff communicate with each other
during times of national or local crises. Immediately following the
tragic events, the CAO conducted an in-depth organizational assessment
to improve its coverage of House systems during unexpected emergencies.
The assessment results identified the need to expand operations and
technical support to 24 hours a day/7 days a week for key technology
and communications support areas. The specific CAO operations which are
proposed for 24x7 coverage are the following:
The Emergency Communications Center--which will also
assume the duties of the HIR call center and the Network Control Center
during non-core business hours
Information Security Systems Monitoring--this includes
firewall, intrusion detection systems etc * * *
Messaging Systems--this includes Blackberry services
Internet/Intranet Systems Management--this includes the
proactive monitoring of systems to include web servers and critical
file/print servers
In addition to the 24/7 coverage, we are requesting additional
personnel who will be responsible for drafting and disseminating
internal House communications normally performed by public affairs
offices in government agencies and departments, both in times of
emergencies and normal business operations. These personnel will also
undertake to improve CAO internal communication efforts to improve
House personnel knowledge of CAO services. Changes in CAO functions and
services, together with normal House personnel turnover, have resulted
in a lack of consistent awareness and understanding of services that
are available to House Members, staff and offices.
W-2 INFORMATION
With all the changes in the tax code, more and more people are
using computer based or web based tax preparation services for their
taxes. I've noticed that private sector employees make available the
electronic transfer or download of employee W-2 information.
Question. What, if any, barriers are there for the House of
Representatives to make available to our employees the electronic
transfer or download of employee W-2 information?
Response. The main barrier is our current payroll system. No
programmatic changes to this outdated, mainframe-based system are
planned because the system will be replaced within one to two years.
Once the new payroll system is in place, there should be no technical
barriers to provide employees the electronic transfer or download of
employee W-2 information.
COMMUNICATIONS
At the time of the tragic disaster on 9/11, there were many
instances of facilities such as AT&T's directory assistance facility in
New York being temporarily put out of commission, thereby making it
impossible for news media and others to access certain New York
officials. I wonder what thought you have given in your office to the
following types of questions:
Question. How would Members and Staff be able to contact local/
state/federal officials in their own districts/states or other
districts at the time of another disaster that knocked out a local
telephone company's directory assistance or the House computer system?
For example, if a Member was traveling and a tornado strikes the
hometown, how can the Member conveniently come up with a number for
FEMA or National Guard facility? Or if there were a disaster here what
contact records could be accessed and how accurate would they be?
Response. The House does not provide national directory assistance
information. Maintenance of nation-wide information by the House would
be cost prohibitive and unreliable. However, Members can call national
directory assistance by dialing 1-area code 555-1212 to obtain
telephone numbers in an emergency. As a general practice, however, all
Members should maintain and routinely update emergency contact
information specific to their state and local governments. This
information can be easily stored in personal data assistance such as
the Blackberry device or in the Member's cell phone. Other suggestions
include preparing and carrying a small laminated card containing
important emergency services contact information for their district,
and having District offices maintain a complete contact list. Also,
phone numbers for FEMA regional offices are available on FEMA's web
site and there is a www.411.com directory assistance web site on the
Internet.
Question. How would Members be able to immediately contact local
officials (e.g. the sheriff) in their constituencies?
Response. During national emergencies and other crisis, Members are
encouraged to use their Government Emergency Telecommunications Service
(GETS) cards, which will improve probability of call completion through
voice lines. However, if the local supporting telephone central office
is destroyed or is out of commission, then the call will not get
through until repairs/work-arounds are in place.
Question. What steps are you considering that would ensure the
continuity of Congressional business for Members, staff, Committees
regarding needed interaction and accessibility to other government
entities and important contacts within a Member's constituency? Have
you given any thought to making available for Members, the Committees
and even the Congressional phone operators an accessible data base that
they could reach conveniently at anytime any place to reach needed
contacts in an emergency or in the course of normal business?
Response. The fundamental issue in providing assured
telecommunications connectivity is avoiding a stressed public
infrastructure. Unfortunately, most solutions to avoiding the public
infrastructure are expensive. Several steps are being considered to
enhance accessibility back to the Member's district. These include
issuing GETS cards to the Members; issuing satellite telephones to
Members; providing a frame relay backup to district offices (possibly
via satellite and with a single phone line that avoids the public phone
system (PSTN)); a private cell phone system for the downtown DC area;
and, mobile communication vans to provide support to Members both
during emergencies and for non-emergency off-campus gatherings of
Members.
The U.S. Capitol Telephone Exchange maintains an extensive database
of Member's personal emergency contact information (for Washington and
the district offices), provided the Member has volunteered this
information. Contact information for government agencies and executive
branch personnel is provided to the Capitol Exchange via the House and
Senate telephone directors that are produced by the Clerk of the House
and the Senate Sergeant at Arms. Outside of this information, the
Capitol Exchange Operators depend on national directory assistance to
obtain emergency contact information.
Question. What can we do to best maintain the continuity, in this
sector of communications concern, and resiliency of Congress after a
calamity, wherever it might occur? What are the fail-safe back-ups--
logistically, geographically, the degree of accuracy and accessibility?
What files should be available remotely?
Response. There is no one system that can guarantee 100%
communications connectivity during an emergency. We are pursing a
strategy of multiple layers/methods to significantly improve our
ability to support House communications. In addition to the methods
listed above, we are considering upgrades to our campus telephone
system (and how it connects to the public infrastructure) that will
eliminate current single points of failure and improve our resiliency
and access into the public network. Members have also been assigned
Blackberry devices to enhance wireless communications via email and the
distribution of GETS telephone calling cards will increase the
probability of call completion during times of national emergency and
crisis.
Several different offsite facilities are being identified that will
support House data and phone service, provide limited Member office
support, support a House chamber, and house the U.S. Capitol Telephone
Exchange and the database of Member's personal emergency contact
information.
All Member files on their servers will be backed up to the
Alternate Computer Facility. Member offices have received information
concerning the preparation of ``Go-kits'' for their office. These kits
should be prepared for offices here in DC and in the district
containing information/files that individual Members deem important.
Members are encouraged to assist in planning for future emergencies by
capturing important telephone numbers for state and local agencies and
officials.
Question. Please discuss the status of your efforts to facilitate
reliable, remote accessibility to House computer systems.
Response. The Office of the CAO prepared a report on this subject
(Providing Remote Access for House Computer Systems--February 8, 2002)
in response to the conference language in the FY 2002 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill. In that report, the CAO described the
progress on current activities in this area and identified areas that
we are planning to pursue in the near future. Examples of the areas
addressed in the report include:
Remote Dial-In and Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Services--these tow technologies allow users to remotely access (e.g.,
from home or on travel) the House's network enterprise through secure
means. We have recently upgraded these services such that we can now
support approximately 192 concurrent dial-in users and 100 concurrent
VPN users. Planned efforts in this area will include assessing business
continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DR) requirements for concurrent dial-
in and VPN users and implementing necessary changes to the technical
infrastructure to support these numbers. In order to ensure that only
authorized House personnel can access the House network, we use secure
ID cards (SecurID). We have recently implemented an upgrade to this
system that will be completed this spring so that we can support 16,000
cards.
District Office Flagship Service Upgrade--this effort, to
be completed in May, will provide District Offices with an upgrade from
current 56Kbps connections to 256Kbps. In doing so, these district
offices will be capable of supporting additional staff should
relocation be required and Members choose to use their District Offices
as an alternate site for some staff.
Wireless Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)--while not a
replacement for a desktop computer, PDA devices are providing wireless
access to email and related functions that are helping Members and
staff ``stay in touch'' even when not in the office. Additionally,
House Information Resources will pursue expansion of wireless web
solutions for House PDA users so that they may access House Intranet
information and ultimately extend the functionality of these devices
beyond their current use. Support is currently being provided to over
1700 Blackberry devices.
Alternate Data Facilities--we are working with a joint
Senate and House task force to formalize requirements and identify
sites that can be used to establish an alternate data facility. The
intent of this effort is to ensure that in the event of a major
disruption to the House's current Data Center, critical legislative
business processes can continue. This facility will also support backup
and storage of Member, Committee and other House entity data as
requested.
Other initiatives currently planned:
Secure Access--Anytime Anywhere--We are in the initial
stages of investigating technologies and strategies to support the
concept of secure, anytime anywhere access. This concept refers to the
ability to access an organization's computing services from multiple
devices (e.g., PDAs, laptops, home/personally-owned computers) and
multiple locations. Essentially the theory is if you can get to an
electronic connection (wired or wireless), either directly to the
enterprise or through the public Internet, then you can get access to
computing services to meet your specific business need. Once the
investigative phase is completed, we intend to identify business areas
that represent targets of opportunity for near term payoff and
recommend appropriate pilot and/or implementation projects.
Thin Client Services--These technologies are currently in
the investigation stage. We have incorporated analysis of this
concurrently with our current Exchange 2000/Windows-Server Next
Generation engineering study. Currently technology such as Timbuktu is
used to allow remote access to a computer from a distant site. Use of
Timbuktu can often times allow a home user that uses 56Kbps dial-in
service to be able to achieve an improved performance experience.
Specific offices are also supported with secure Citrix server
implementation which allow remote access to office computing services
across a slow network connection without the need to leave the specific
user's office computer on.
Alternate Facilities--To date, the CAO, Clerk, Sergeant at
Arms and other offices have been involved in establishing facilities
for an Alternate Chamber, Alternate Member, Committee and Support staff
offices and interim Data Center backup facilities. Memorandums of
understanding are approved or in the final stages of development and
for some facilities equipment and connections have already been
established.
MAIL PROCESSING DELAYS
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Chairman Taylor, and I agree with your
assessment from all four individuals. I would like Dr. Eisold
to join us again on the panel. You have done a superb job and I
have great respect for our four officials today. I think Dr.
Eisold and Mr. Livingood, particularly, at a time of stress and
crisis have performed extraordinarily well.
But let me ask some questions that I am concerned about.
First, we will go to the mail issue. The Senate chose to
process its mail basically by itself and we chose to contract
it out, I understand. First of all, I would like to know the
cost of that contract. I am getting mail even now that dates
back to December. Two weeks ago we got the bulk of our
Christmas cards. Last week we got some mail that was postmarked
in February. So it is getting better. But it is not
particularly helpful. Most invitations, for example, are sent
about a month in advance. Most of the mail we get now, because
it is so late, is useless.
It is also crushed. I am curious what is the purpose of
crushing the mail? And most importantly, I want to know what it
is that we have protected ourselves from through all of this
expense and delay and processing.
Mr. Eagen.
Mr. Eagen. I think that is primarily me, Mr. Moran. With
regard to the time that it takes for some of the mail to get
through, you are definitely correct. I have gotten Christmas
cards myself in the last couple of weeks. And when we ask those
questions of the Postal Service why that dated mail is still
coming through, the explanation basically is what I referred to
earlier, is that in the accumulation of trailer upon trailer,
they are giving those to us in different order. Sometimes it is
the most current mail, sometimes it is the older mail.
RECONSTRUCTING THE MAIL PROCESS
Mr. Moran. So you are saying the fault lies with the Postal
Service. What batches of mail they are giving to you, or is it
the contractor?
Mr. Eagen. No, it is definitely a combination of the Postal
Service and the House's ability to process the mail in this new
manner. The facility that we have constructed offsite through a
GSA-leased facility has only come fully on line in the last
month or so. Mr. Hoyer has been helpful over the weeks of
working with the local county officials to get the permitting
process through. And we are basically, as I mentioned earlier,
reconstructing the entire House mail sorting and distribution
process. In addition, we are adding all of this new sampling
capability to verify that the irradiation is successful. It has
taken us time to build all of those facilities.
The Postal Service has been delivering trailers to us in
inconsistent time frames. But then it does still take us time
to process all of that mail, depending on exactly what it is.
MAIL PROCESSING TIME
Mr. Moran. I just can't understand why it takes up to 3 or
4 months to process mail. I just can't envision in my mind what
the process is that would require that kind of time. Can you
just explain to me in layman's terms the physical processing
that takes that much time?
Mr. Eagen. I will explain the front end of the process as
best as I know it, which is a Postal Service process. The mail
is put in a mailbox, obviously wherever in the country, and is
sent into their stream. It comes to Washington, D.C., where it
is sorted into streams of government and nongovernment, and the
nongovernment mail goes on. All the government ZIP Codes are
then going through the irradiation process.
Mr. Moran. This irradiation process, this is a process that
takes less than 24 hours.
Mr. Eagen. From the date of the postmark, correct. And at
that point, it is then trucked en masse originally either to
Lima, Ohio, or to this facility in New Jersey and our
understanding as of last week is it will be solely to the
facility in New Jersey, where it is irradiated. It is not
sorted within the government mail at that point. So it is just
the bulk of all the government mail. It is then irradiated and
then it is shipped back to Washington to what I understand is a
tent out at the Brentwood facility where it is being sorted.
And then it eventually comes to the House.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Now, so the Postal Service sorts it out
you are saying by ZIP Code and then?
Mr. Eagen. That is for the government mail ZIP Codes. They
do not sort within the government ZIP Codes.
Mr. Moran. They sort out government and nongovernmental
mail. And is it like recycling? After everybody recycles we
throw it all in the same bin anyway? Why don't we keep some
sense of the results of the sorting at that point? Is that
impossible to do?
Mr. Eagen. The Postal Service says that their process is
better to just do it as one lump of the government and then
sort it when it gets back here into these separate----
Mr. Moran. So they are not doing the sorting out--so the
beginning of that process does not take effect any longer? You
were describing the process, and the mail comes in and they
would normally sort it by ZIP Code. They do not sort it
initially. It all just comes in, what, by region or something?
Mr. Eagen. No, it is sorted by all of the government ZIP
Codes into one separate government ZIP Code.
Mr. Moran. All the government ZIP Codes in the Washington
Metro Area?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. And the government has separate ZIP Codes?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. It does? So these Federal office buildings over
in Arlington, they have a separate ZIP Code from the private
office building next door?
Mr. Eagen. I can't speak to each building, but the House is
20515, the Senate is 20510, so on.
Mr. Moran. Is our mail mixed with the executive branch
mail?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, it is.
Mr. Moran. And the executive branch mail includes not just
the Federal office buildings in Washington but the Metro Area?
NIH? The Pentagon?
Mr. Eagen. It is my understanding that it is the entire
Metropolitan Area.
Mr. Moran. And so it is thrown into this enormous mountain
of mail. Anything that starts with 22, I suppose or something
like that. They just throw it into this mountain? They do not
go through the sorting process?
Mr. Eagen. Well, just to clarify, they do go through an
initial sorting process to take that out of the rest of the
mail stream. So there is one sort.
IRRADIATION PROCESS
Mr. Moran. So now they have hundreds of thousands of pieces
of mail coming in every day, I suppose. And then they throw it
all onto a truck and they have been driving this now to Ohio,
this truck of unsorted mail. Now they just drive to New Jersey.
It comes in there, and then do they take every individual piece
and irradiate it?
Mr. Eagen. No, it goes through in bags.
Mr. Moran. So there is just a mass radiation in bags. So
these letters that went to Daschle's office, irradiation would
have killed any of those anthrax spores, John?
Dr. Eisold. That is right. That is the process. And I know
that the process as it proceeds even goes further because you
know that you have a corner snipped off.
Mr. Moran. You have a corner snipped off?
Dr. Eisold. Most of my mail has. They look to see if there
is any substance in there that might spill out. That is an
extra safety factor, although we are confident that any
biological agent in that envelope is killed.
Mr. Moran. Is killed through irradiation?
Dr. Eisold. Yes, but I still would not deliver some funny
piece of mail that had dust in it.
Mr. Eagen. It kills the anthrax but it does not remove the
anthrax.
Mr. Moran. The dead spores then. Have we found anything in
this process, processing the tens of millions of pieces of
mail?
Mr. Eagen. Not yet.
Mr. Moran. Nothing. So it was preventive, but if we had
taken a chance and not done it, it would not have made any
difference? Nothing has been found that actually justified all
of this, other than preventive measures?
Mr. Eagen. Well, except that there was the Daschle and the
Leahy letters.
Mr. Moran. But those were successful. Our actions haven't
actually prevented anything, have they? I am trying to
understand what the net results of the investment of time and
expense have yielded.
Mr. Eagen. The answer is we haven't had a positive sample
so far.
Mr. Moran. No positive sample. At this point it has all
been precautionary.
So we irradiate it. It is irradiated. Now that is--I can't
imagine that to be a particularly long process. Probably a few
seconds to throw it into a batch and blast it with radiation.
Mr. Eagen. It goes through twice is my understanding, so
not just once, but, no, I don't think it should be an
exceptionally long process.
ALTERNATE IRRADIATION FACILITY
Mr. Moran. So it goes to New Jersey to give it a blast of
irradiation. We decided that there is no other place that could
radiate it?
Mr. Eagen. The facility in New Jersey has the largest
capacity facility that they could find. The Postal Service has
purchased four of the machines on their own and the intention
for the mid to long-term is that they would install those
capabilities in the Metropolitan Area to eliminate the trucking
requirement.
Mr. Moran. Are they working on that?
Mr. Eagen. They have the machines. I understand they are
struggling in finding locations.
Mr. Moran. So there is nothing being done right now to find
a closer place? So it comes into New Jersey, and so far, I can
imagine it might take a few hours to drive up to New Jersey, a
few hours back, so a day and then a few minutes to zap. I am
trying to figure out what it is that is causing 3 or 4 months
of delay.
Mr. Eagen. Well, I think you have to separate out--in my
mind you have to separate out the ideal mail flow from current
mail, which my sense is we are getting to that, versus mail
that got backlogged over the last couple of months either from
the initial quarantine of the entire government mail stream,
but then the follow-up results of trying to process that
backlog and storing. Last week they delivered eight trailer
loads of mail to us all at once.
Mr. Moran. All at once?
Mr. Eagen. Yes.
Mr. Moran. They delivered eight trailer loads sorted?
Mr. Eagen. Sorted for the House.
Mr. Moran. So that is just dividing it into the House or
the Senate--not the Senate, the Senate is doing their own
thing.
Mr. Eagen. That is right.
Mr. Moran. Just giving you the House. Is the processing
that used to take less than 24 hours, this processing by ZIP
Code, and yet this is a process that is now taking 3 or 4
months and we are paying how much to do this?
Mr. Eagen. It is costing us--we are not paying for the
irradiation. That is the Postal Service's cost. The House does
not bear that cost.
PITNEY BOWES CONTRACT
Mr. Moran. Yeah, but aren't we contracting?
Mr. Eagen. We have historically contracted with Pitney
Bowes in the House processing the mail, even prior to last
fall. They have been the House mail contractor since 1995.
Mr. Moran. But we are paying extra for this extra
processing; right?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Moran. How much are we paying?
Mr. Eagen. Right now about double what it used to cost.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I guess that is the thrust of my concern.
Maybe I am being unreasonable, but it seems to me that the mail
delivery has been virtually useless since September 11th. I
mean to get something 4 months late. I suppose it is nice to
know. Suppose I sent you a Christmas card 4 months ago, it is a
little silly to respond at that point. But none of the
invitations are helpful, I would rather not get mail that has
not been answered for 4 months. I would rather say we never
received it because nobody is going to believe that we got it 4
months late.
So it would have almost been better if we had not got any.
So the mail has been, as far as I am concerned, a useless form
of communication, and yet we are paying double for it. And
there has got to be some explanation for why it is taking that
4 months to be received. I still don't understand why that is
the process. It is not irradiated one by one. The sorting
process used to take place in 24 hours, and yet it is taking 4
months. I think it is a legitimate area of inquiry. And I guess
I would like a better explanation.
OFF-GASSING
Mr. Eagen. I think there are other factors. Those factors
are that there are additional steps. We did not finish walking
through the process. When the mail comes back to the Washington
area and to the Brentwood facility, it is left, I think, for 24
to 48 hours for an off-gassing procedure.
Mr. Moran. Off-gassing? What is off-gassing?
Mr. Eagen. You want to speak to that?
Dr. Eisold. It is much like I mentioned before. When this
mail is irradiated everything in there, dust, bugs, mites,
plastic takes a hit. And some of it melts or changes into
different chemical substances. Some of it vaporizes. And so it
is those type of by-products that we felt were irritating
people. And they found it very effective to then spread the
mail out in well-ventilated areas for 24 hours to let any of
those by-products that developed drift away.
Mr. Moran. I can understand why that would take a day.
BRENTWOOD FACILITY
Mr. Eagen. The other factor that I mentioned in the opening
statement, the Brentwood facility, where they had the high
automation systems for all of this government mail and that
facility is still closed. Only in the last couple of weeks that
I started to read articles about the Postal Service's plan to
clean that facility and make it possible to use all of that
automation to sort all of this mail. So my understanding is
they have been doing a lot of this by hand in tents and trying
to use other facilities to pick up the sorting of this mail.
So where once there was the high automation that you
described of turning an envelope around in 24 hours, a lot of
that capacity, both at the Postal Service and within the House
itself, was destroyed via last fall.
Mr. Moran. Brentwood had a high level of automation? But
most Postal Services still do it by hand, and they still do it
within 24 hours.
Mr. Eagen. At one point they were telling us that the
result of the dryness of the irradiated mail was hampering the
machines that they used because of the higher dust level. They
are encountering all levels of problems that are slowing down
what used to be an extremely speedy automated system.
Mr. Moran. Have all the periodicals been thrown out?
Mr. Eagen. No, they are in the third class mail category
that was approved to start flowing on March 25th.
Mr. Moran. Okay. But again periodicals that are 4 months
old are not particularly useful.
Mr. Eagen. I understand that.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I guess I have beaten this enough. I still
do not fully understand why it has taken as long as it has. But
I guess I should go on to Mr. Hoyer.
But I have got some other questions about offsite
facilities, about our preparation if we shut down, for remote
computer communication for this mobile communication system
that we have. So I will just give you some advanced warning I
want to ask about that. But at this point we have got other
members here that want to ask questions.
Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Following are the questions submitted to be
answered for the record from Mr. Moran.]
Remote Access
Question. The events of September 11th and the anthrax incidents
underscored the need to improve access to our computers and information
systems from remote locations. While I applaud the efforts that have
been undertaken to date, I suspect the additional improvements are
still warranted. I would like to work with you in assessing this
capability and finding the resources to enable Members, staff, and
agency employees the ability to access their computers from a remote
location. It is my understanding that the single most important
technological device that would achieve this objective is to equip more
offices and staff with laptop computers. Do you agree with this
assessment?
Response. Providing Members, staff, and other House employees
(e.g., contractors) the ability to access their computers from a remote
location requires an end-to-end solution. Our strategy is to provide
access for Members and some staff (about 2,000) from an Alternate House
Office Building. User terminal devices (e.g., PCs and Laptops) are
required to provide this capability as well as a dedicated data network
connection from the alternate site to the House Campus network.
However, there are other required elements such as SecurID
authentication devices, individual circuit connections, and House
egress capability.
Question. Since most offices may not have budgeted for this
expense, do you think we should establish a one-time adjustment in
accounts to permit the purchase of the necessary equipment?
Response. A one-time adjustment to the appropriation for all House
entities other than the MRA and the Committees could be used to defray
the costs of the user terminal equipment (e.g., laptops). However,
spending levels for the Members Representational Allowance and
Committee authorizations are set by the CHA and any increase would
require their approval. In addition, the capacity of House equipment
and circuits would need to be expanded in order to provide an adequate
level of access and throughput needed for the additional remote users.
Question. I am still troubled by the difficulty with which Members
and staff can access their offices from a remote location. In your
estimation, what are the major roadblocks that have prevented most
offices from gaining remote access?
Response. In order to access the House network from a remote
location, Members and staff need a laptop computer, a secure means of
connecting to the House network, and a network with the capacity to
bridge the remote location to the House network. Some design work and
hardware procurement is required to complete the dedicated connection.
Question. In the perfect world, what additional resources would
make this goal more easily achieved?
Response. Procurement of laptops and SecurID cards, some design
work (contractor support) and procurement of network hardware to expand
the current capability of the House network.
COMMITTEE ROOM RENOVATIONS
Question. How much have you requested for Committee Room
Renovations in FY 2003?
Response. The request for Committee Room Renovations in FY 2003 is
$4.5 million.
Question. How many rooms will you be able to renovate at that
funding level?
Response. Depending on the results of a room-by-room assessment and
room availability, between January and December 2003 approximately six
rooms could be renovated. Outside of the basic standards, each room is
unique in its audio and video requirements so it is difficult to
determine exactly how many could be renovated at the requested funding
level. The cost to renovate each hearing room could be as little as
$210k for audio only to $800k for audio and video. The $4.5 million
could cover additional costs outside the base standards that each
Chairman chose to have done.
Question. What is the process for prioritizing the schedule of
renovations?
Response. The Committee on House Administration (CHA) will
determine which Committee is next on the implementation schedule based
on where a Committee is in the Phase II design development and approval
process. The CHA will notify House Office Building Commission (HOBC) of
the prioritization schedule. For other Committees in the future, a
letter of request will be sent to CHA signed by the respective
Committee Chairman. CHA will again determine and notify HOBC of the
prioritization schedule based on where a Committee is in the Phase II
design development and approval process.
Question. Are all rooms being brought up to a certain standard to
assure infrastructure compatibility in the future?
Response. In anticipation of technology improvements and at the
request of Committee Chairmen, additional technological capabilities
and enhancements will be completed during the Renovation Program. Each
Committee room will have infrastructure build outs, electrical conduits
and raceways that will accommodate the following technologies:
Auto Streaming, Broadcast Cameras, Broadcast Network Feeds, Closed
Captioning, Computers, Digital Microphones, DVD's, Limited Data Feeds,
Plasma Screens, Polycoms & ``Squawk Boxes,'' Projectors, Speakers,
Timers, Teleconferencing, and Transcribers.
Question. What parameters are Committees given when their rooms
come up for renovation?
Response. Committees are required to follow audio standardization
guidelines set forth by the CHA. A complimentary video standard is
currently under development that Committees will also be expected to
follow:
Question. How many years is this project expected to continue?
Response. This project will continue for a least 3 to 4 years.
Question. How is this being coordinated between the CAO and the
Architect of the Capitol?
Response. Once the respective Committee has the CHA approved 100%
Phase II drawings and specifications for their hearing room the
drawings are provided to the Superintendents Office for a cost estimate
for the infrastructure build out. After completion of the cost
estimate, letters requesting approval and authorization for the
construction are signed by the respective Committee Chairman, AoC and
HOBC. Upon CHA receiving HOBC approval, the designated CAO program
manager holds a coordination meeting with the CHA, Construction
Management Division, FRC for dais and furniture repair and/or
replacement, Superintendents Office, respective Committee staff, HIR
for CAT 5 & fiber installation), design and installation contractor's
and Office of Procurement for the team to address additional
infrastructure comments or concerns and build schedule.
OFFSITE FACILITIES
Question. Please describe some of the off-site facilities that are
planned.
Response. To date, the CAO, Clerk, Sergeant at Arms and other
offices have been involved in establishing offsite facilities for an
Alternate Chamber and Member Briefing Center to provide Members a
location outside of the Capitol Building to meet and receive
information from the Leadership and United States Capitol Police in the
event of an emergency; Emergency Response Center to coordinate incident
response activities of various agencies; Alternate Member, Committee
and other House entity offices; and an Alternate Computer Facility.
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) are in the final stages of
development and some facilities equipment and connections have already
been established. Future efforts under this project include the
development of comprehensive ``Go Plans'' for each facility such that
various permutations of loss of House campus facilities can be
supported. For example, if a single House building were inaccessible,
pre-arranged offices would be available at the alternate facility,
including House network connections, phone services, and basic office
equipment that could be occupied on very short notice. Where
unwarranted, sites will also include capabilities for remote access to
support personnel that may not be in the alternate site but may be
working from home or a District Office.
Question. Are the offsite facilities going to support some of the
day-to-day workload or are they going to sit idle?
Response. The Alternate Computer Facility will be an active
facility with a full-time staff of twelve, who will perform day-to-day
activities in support of the House pending a declared emergency. As the
other facilities are needed they will be brought online to provide day-
to-day functions in support of House operations.
Question. What are you doing to achieve economies of scale with
other organizations that are also establishing back up facilities?
Response. A joint Senate, House, Architect of the Capitol, and
Library of Congress task force has been working on establishing the
Alternate Computer Facility to support the needs of the participant
organizations.
Question. Why is 24x7 data center coverage necessary?
Response. The intent of this effort is to ensure that in the event
of a major disruption to the House's core information technology
infrastructure, regardless of the time of day, critical legislative
business processes can continue. This facility will also support backup
and storage of Member, Committee and other House entity data as
requested.
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
Question. How much is requested for mobile communications?
Response. As part of the FY 2002 Emergency Supplemental, the CAO
received funding for a concept called Mobile Communications. The intent
of this concept is to provide a capability that would allow quick
establishment of voice and data services at alternate locations where
members and staff may be temporarily located during an emergency. In
addition, under this project, we are investigating alternate wireless/
mobile voice communications services (e.g., private cellular,
satellite-based) that would have a higher degree of reliability during
emergencies than current public networks. The specific implementations
that would be pursued are still in development as part of the CAO's
overall Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery Program.]
In FY 2003, the CAO has requested $5,100,000 to support the
operation and maintenance of the Mobile Communications capability. The
funding will be used for items such as recurring monthly charges for
any purchased services, equipment maintenance and licensing, and any
expansion to the capability that is not addressed on initial
implementation.
Question. What capabilities will we gain that we don't have at this
time?
Response. At this time, there is no off-site/mobile communications
deployment capability that will backup and support the following:
Interim Member Briefing Center standup off of the main
campus
Incident Response Center standup off of the main campus
Allow for continuous access (remote access) to House
communications systems during an evacuation
There is currently no assured form of cellular communications on
campus, all cellular communications are in direct competition with the
general public switched telephone network (PSTN). The establishment of
a private cellular network on campus that extends approximately 3 miles
beyond campus for House Members and key staff, will provide an assured
layer of communications that is not dependent on the public network,
which may be overloaded in times of emergency conditions. Current
planning has the House and Senate sharing the cost of deploying this
private cellular system. In order to provide true worldwide
communications capability, satellite telephony is needed to keep House
Members and key staff in communications with each other wherever they
may be around the world. Satellite telephony is able to service
locations around the world where cellular cannot. This effort is
initially intended to provide satellite handsets to House leadership
and key staff. At this time, it is estimated that 100 satellite
handsets will be made available. If additional handsets are needed,
they can be provided as requirements are identified.
Question. How was this estimate developed?
Response. These initial cost estimates were developed by talking/
meeting with vendors and carriers and getting their estimates of what
it would take to provide these emergency communications capabilities.
For example, a private cellular vendor successfully conducted an on
campus demonstration of the capability for 90 days and it provided
valuable insight into what it would take to implement the system
campus-wide. These estimates will be updated as more relevant
information becomes available.
Question. What will be the recurring costs of this initiative?
Response. The recurring cost for the offsite/mobile communications
capability is estimated to be $210,000 per year. The recurring cost for
the assured communications capability is estimated to be $1,030,000
(private cellular service system and satellite telephony) per year.
Question. What plans have been developed for housing the equipment?
Response. The current plan is to house the offsite/mobile
communications deployment capability in a communications vehicle that
can accommodate all of the required communications equipment and
support personnel. It will be a self-contained standalone capability.
STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
Question. Where do you stand with implementing the student loan
assistance program?
Response. In accordance with the direction of the FY 2002
Legislative Branch Appropriation Conference Report, the Committee on
House Administration has taken the lead in preparing a proposal for the
student loan assistance program. Their draft provides for a significant
role for the office of the CAO and we have provided technical
assistance in drafting the proposal.
Question. Have there been any uniform guidelines established to
ensure consistency implementing this program among Legislative Branch
agencies?
Response. The Legislative Branch Financial Management Council has
developed implementation guidelines. This question is properly
addressed to the Committee on House Administration since they are
drafting the proposal.
MAIL OPERATIONS
Question. What was the amount spent for mail processing in FY 2001
and what is the total you are projecting to spend in FY 2002?
Response. Expenses in FY 2001--$3.3 million; Expenses in FY 2002.
Labor costs for processing mail are capped at $592,877 per month.
The contract with Pitney Bowes was modified in November 2001 to a time
and materials contract with this amount as an upset price. Work is much
more labor-intensive, labor rates are higher for new skill-sets
required, and work includes processing packages as well as USPS mail.
Payment to GSA for rent, utilities, security, etc. for the Capitol
Heights offsite mail facility, $534,242 per year with LOC and Senate
sharing costs.
Estimated cost for completion of build-out of Capitol Heights
$4,000,000 with LOC and Senate sharing costs (Subject to adjustment
based on actual bids received by PBMS).
Estimated costs for additional equipment $644,000 with LOC and
Senate sharing costs.
Question. If the additional costs are funded, what will be the
total budget for mail processing in FY 2003?
Response.
FY 2002 revised costs............ $7,114,525 ($592,877 monthly)
Est. annual costs/Digital Mail... 5,001,432 ($416,786 monthly)
Plus 50% of GSA occupancy 267,121
agreement.
--------------------------------------
FY 2003 Estimated Postal 12,383,078
Budget.
Question. What functions have been added during FY 2002 and what
other changes are anticipated in FY 2003?
Response.
1. Offsite mail facility.
2. Additional manual processes for assuring sanitization of mail.
3. Separate staff within Pitney Bowes for delivery and processing
because of offsite location.
4. Processing of all UPS, FedEx and Airborne packages that were
previously delivered by shippers.
5. Exploration of possible implementation of digital mail and pilot
program for digital mail.
Question How long is the average time between a letter being sent
and delivery in a Member's office?
Response. USPS has indicated that it takes up to ten days for mail
to be processed and delivered to the House. The House has documented a
rate of 4.7 business days for delivery to Member offices after receipt
from USPS. Statistics vary from day to day, but on May 6, 2002, the
House Inspector General found that 17% of the USPS delivered mail had
postmarks older than March and 10% had postmarks in 2001.
Question. Are the initiatives planned for FY 2003 designed to
streamline the process?
Response. The CAO is working with the Senate and Federal agencies
on a task force at the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the
White House to determine more efficient processes for detecting
contamination in the mail and speeding up processing. The House is also
working to identify a shorter, but just as reliable, method of
detection of anthrax and other pathogens. The USPS has indicated that
they are looking for a local site for an irradiation facility to
eliminate the time necessary to travel to New Jersey for irradiation.
Question. Are sufficient precautions being taken for the staff
(both contractor and in-house) who handle the mail at various stages in
the process?
Response. Yes. Pitney Bowes has extensive safety requirements and
procedures in place for their employees. The mail has been tested by
Pitney Bowes, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and no
dangerous levels of contaminants have been found in the mail.
MAIL PROCESSING DAY-BY-DAY
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Moran. We are going to be in
hearings most of the day, and we will try to move along with
the various people coming in. Mr. Wamp, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoyer. Zach, would you yield one second?
Mr. Wamp. Certainly.
Mr. Hoyer. I think it would be useful, Jay, if you would
submit for the record a day-by-day chronology of the mail
processing, because I listened to Mr. Moran's questions. And I
am not sure I could explain to another Member exactly why it
takes as long as it does. I think Mr. Moran is right. I think a
presentation of exactly the steps and the time it takes and why
it takes that much time would be helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Each member will have the opportunity to submit
questions to the witnesses, for the record, if you do not have
the chance to ask them today.
Mr. Wamp?
[Clerk's note.--The day by day mail processing chart
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EXPRESSING GRATITUTDE
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief, but I think
this is really important to share. We have the Attending
Physician, the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the Clerk of the House, the Inspector General, the
General Counsel, et cetera, et cetera, all very important
titles. But in the movie Braveheart, William Wallace said,
``Men don't follow titles, they follow courage.'' I want you to
know on behalf of my children, my wife, my constituents, that
when that great call to courage came, you all performed
incredibly well. Day in, day out, week in, week out. All the
hundreds of people that work for you deserve our appreciation.
We have not given those people our gratitude at an
acceptable level thus far, the people that stood in the gap. I
saw the pain on Dr. Eisold's face over and over again when we
had the anthrax problem. I saw Bill stand courageously when he
had to. Jay and Jeff, and others, it really is extraordinary
the job that you did when we were in a crisis, and we are not
out of the woods. And as Jay said, we are not going to come out
of these woods, we have got to learn to operate in these woods
from here on.
You all signed up for jobs that have great titles, that
have great prestige, but you never signed up for what you got.
We did not either, but we get a lot of praise and you all do
not get enough and the people that work with you and for you
day in and day out do not get enough thanks from us. I just
want it to be reflected for the record that this committee that
funds the salaries and expenses of all of those people in these
different categories--this is not the sexy subcommittee. This
is not the sexy subject matter. This is kind of the grunt work
of the appropriations process, and the grunt work of the
operations of this form of government, which is the best in the
history of the world.
And you all are extraordinary people who have actually
become even more extraordinary, much like our President has at
a time where courage is necessary. People can either become
great or fade away. I think we have all collectively stood the
test of time.
COORDINATING ACTIVITIES
I have two questions. One, Bill, can you give us a briefing
on how well we are coordinating all of the activities with the
Visitor Center construction and how we are going to wean off
the overtime of the Capitol Hill Police and not go back to
normal, but deal with the new paradigm, and how are we
coordinating? Is there a group that meets every week that has a
master plan for this that you all are each a part of? That is
one question.
Then I want Jay to talk to me about how people are doing
and how are the families of your workers. Each of you all can
respond because I am most interested in the people effect of
what has happened and what this committee can do to make sure
that the quality of life and the fear factor is manageable.
Bill?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, Mr. Wamp, thank you for your comments.
I also feel the same way about everybody, and particularly
employees in my office, the other officers' offices, and the
Capitol Police. I feel very committed to that, and I feel very
deep feelings about that every day.
To answer your question is there one group that meets? No,
sir, there are several groups that meet. For the Capitol police
issues, the Capitol Police Board meets. We are meeting weekly,
sometimes twice a week on these issues. One issue is trying to
get the Capitol police back to some normalcy, trying to get
them back to 8-hour shifts where they don't work excessive
overtime and they can be at home with their families and yet
still maintaining the vigil that is needed at the U.S. Capitol
and the buildings.
We also have a second group, and that is the group of House
officers that meet periodically. We have a scheduled meeting.
And we also have a third group that meets, and that is with the
leadership staff and the officers. Also included is the
Architect in all of these meetings. So I think we do stay
cognizant and on top of the constructions, the Visitor Center,
the security requirements, the day-to-day changes that are
occurring, and try to keep each other informed more than ever
before.
This is new, and I think we do a fairly good job of keeping
each other informed.
EMPLOYEE FAMILIES
Mr. Wamp. Jay, how are the families doing?
Mr. Eagen. I would say mixed. We did a survey last fall
once all the buildings were back open. We had a professional
independent firm come in and do a survey of all offices, member
offices, committees, administrative offices like Bill's and
Jeff's and mine, and tried to get a sense of how people reacted
to last fall, what did they think of the communications, what
did they think about the information, how did they feel about
their safety and their health.
Generally, the House campus was concerned about their
health. A more specific kind of anecdotal example is the child
care center which is under my purview is and located in the
Ford Building, where the contamination was found in two
locations. We had parents withdraw their children. They didn't
feel completely safe while we were dislocated and while they
didn't feel completely safe to come back, some of them have
come back. Once they got a chance to come and tour the center
and see it, they felt comfortable again and felt that we were
taking the right steps to prepare for the future.
Last fall one of the task groups that we put together--we
had a Chamber Task Group and a House Office Building Task Group
was a Human Matters Task Group, and we recognized exactly the
point that you were referring to, is that not only our
employees but your staff were going to have difficulty dealing
with this, and the job of the Human Matters Group was to simply
focus on that aspect, trying to think through what are the
questions the people were going to have. When the conference
calls were done with Members and Chief of Staff, we
brainstormed the types of questions that we were having from
staff and Members and tried to answer them up front so people
had the best information that they could have.
But I think there is still generally a worry out there, if
you will, amongst a number of people and I think that is one of
the reasons why when you ask the questions, Mr. Moran, that we
do have serious decisions to make about what kind of security
systems we keep related to the mail and peoples' comfort
working in this environment, and it is not an easy question to
answer. I want to assure Mr. Moran, I didn't say this in answer
to your question, I understand the mail is not going as fast as
it should. I don't want you to believe that I have thrown up my
arms and it is the way it is. I will not rest until we find
ways to make it meet your expectations. I want you to
understand that that is the way we are going to go about our
business.
Tighter Security
Mr. Wamp. Let me address that in closing because I believe
there is a silver lining in every cloud, and I believe as one
member of this Committee that has been here 5 years on this
Subcommittee, we need tighter security standards around the
traffic in and around the Capitol, and that is the silver
lining in this cloud, is that we can now do that for all the
right reasons. And I have taken many school groups, as any
Member of this House--I did this morning, last night--but we
just can't keep our guard down, and that is the silver lining
here. We can improve our security.
Let me tell you this. We need to move quicker towards a
paperless environment. It is absurd the kind of junk we throw
away. We need to reduce our dependence on all this paper and
move these offices to paperless, and this is a catalyst for
that. So let us use this tragedy for positive things and move
quicker on these things and not be so reliant on the mail. I am
glad that it forces us to change and I hope everybody will
respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me
inquire at the outset, are we going to have a separate hearing
on the Capitol Police?
Mr. Taylor. We are going back to a closed hearing that you
requested.
Mr. Hoyer. I don't know whether that was me or not.
Mr. Taylor. Maybe not. But we will have a closed hearing
continuing on from the one we had a few days ago.
Capitol Police Turnover
Mr. Hoyer. I won't spend a lot of time but Zach mentioned
it, Jim mentioned it and you mentioned it. I think, Zach, you
are correct. I do not believe we have the complement of
personnel in the Capitol Police at this time to effect the kind
of security that you just said you thought was appropriate. And
we have probably, am I correct, Bill, the highest turnover
level that we have had in the Capitol Police since you became
the Sergeant at Arms?
Mr. Livingood. That is correct. Only in the last 3 weeks,
Mr. Hoyer, and that is because of these other agencies,
particularly one that we all know is a new agency that is
hiring 40,000 new employees--that is the Transportation
Security Agency--are just sweeping law enforcement officers
from our department and other departments.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, the TSA is taking law enforcement
officials from a number of Federal agencies, not just
ourselves, and those other Federal agencies are looking for
officers as well. And frankly, unless the Capitol Police are
competitive in terms of pay, hours, benefits and family-
friendly hours, we are going to lose a lot of people that we
have spent a lot of money to train and who understand this
Capitol, understand their responsibilities. I think we have a
critical situation. I won't call it a crisis, but a critical
situation confronting us to which we must respond.
Mr. Livingood. And we are looking at that, Mr. Hoyer, and
getting a briefing on that and recruiting weekly, and there are
a number of people leaving. We have taken some innovative
methods to increase our recruitment.
OEPPO Budget Request
Mr. Hoyer. I look forward to the hearing that we are going
to have, and I appreciate you doing it. Let me go on quickly to
ask some other specific questions.
Mr. Trandahl, you indicated we have on board now the head
of the Office for Emergency Planning Preparedness and
Operations. It is a $2.6 million budget request for that. Can
you briefly outline how that would be spent and what you would
expect the Director to accomplish.
Mr. Trandahl. That budget request of $2.6 million comes in
a separate part of the budget. It is actually under the Speaker
and the Minority Leader and they control that budget. As I
understand it, the way the request has come in, it is mostly
oriented towards personnel and they are looking at a staff of
five to six people. As well, there is a possibility of bringing
in a contractor.
Previously when the three officers were creating this House
Officer Recovery Team the last 3 years here, we had used a
contractor to help create many manuals, processes, and
information. So there is that possibility of bringing in the
contractor and contractor expense to complement that staff.
Beyond that, I really know nothing more.
Page Dormitory
Mr. Hoyer. Let me go to the page dormitory. How is that
working out?
Mr. Trandahl. It worked out very well. As the subcommittee
is familiar, we had about an 18-month process in terms of
working with the Architect of the Capitol, to renovate 501
First Street. The pages were previously in Annex 1, which is
slated to be torn down by the Architect because of the
structural issues within that building. The construction was
slow. We got it done on time, though. We got the kids relocated
into the facility the end of last August, and we are in much
better shape in terms of having the kids in that facility--a
stand-alone facility, with the fire protection and evacuation.
All those features that we can bring into the facility are a
dramatic improvement for the page program.
Publications
Mr. Hoyer. We have authorized a number of historical
publications which you are helping to prepare. Ms. Kaptur and I
and others are very interested in these. Can you give the
status of the publications that chronicle the Women, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islander
Americans in Congress?
Mr. Trandahl. And Women in Congress. All four of those
publications are currently in the pipeline. Currently we have
that historical staff that we have just expanded. We are
looking to print those probably the spring of next year. As
well, we will be making those publications as current as
possible. We will have a new Congress coming in at that point.
Mr. Hoyer. You expect by the next Congress they will be
available?
Mr. Trandahl. It will be in calendar year next, but it will
depend on what changes will be effected by an incoming class of
Members.
Mr. Hoyer. So you are going to wait until the new class?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes.
Restaurant Customer Satisfaction Survey
Mr. Hoyer. Jay, let me go to you briefly and this will be
my last question, though I have others. I have been concerned
since I got here about the quality of the restaurants on the
House side, quality of the food, quality of the service. I am a
very strong supporter of organizing workers. But I am also a
strong supporter of performance and quality. We have increased
somewhat the quality of both, but I don't think it is where we
need to be.
We have discussed customer-satisfaction surveys. Would you
tell me whether they have been conducted and, if so, what the
results and what action, if any, we are taking as a result of
the surveys?
Mr. Eagen. Yes. Guest Services, Incorporated, which has
most of the responsibility for the House campus, everything
except for the Ford Building, brought in an independent firm
called the Food Group last fall once we returned to the
buildings and did a customer satisfaction survey focused on the
House building facilities. It was focused on customer service
specifically, because that was an area that you had been
raising questions about and we asked them to focus on customer
service, how are customers treated by the staff, what is the
accuracy of the order they get. Performance aspects, not
specifically food quality aspects. Customers were asked three
questions, and in each of these categories, does this exceed
your expectations, does it meet your expectation or is it below
your expectation. Rayburn Cafeteria and the Rayburn Deli,
Special Orders Deli got a combination of 100 percent meet my
expectations and exceed my expectations. The two lowest rated
facilities were not food facilities, the convenience store and
the dry cleaners. Lowest rated food facility was the 24 hour
vending room, but that was still in the 90 percent combination
meet expectations and exceeding expectations. So what was done
on the dry cleaners is the lowest one, that was only 79 percent
meet and exceed expectations. Guest Services made a decision--
that is a subcontracted operation. They kept the back end of
the process with the subcontract provider, but they pulled the
staff out and put their own staff into the facility to start
running on the front end.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. LaHood.
Return to Old Mail Processes
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Eagen, do you think you will ever come to a
point where you will make a decision not to use all the
processes that are currently used for processing mail? Do you
think we will ever go back to the time when somebody drops a
piece of mail in Peoria and it will arrive in Washington, D.C.
Within 24, 48 hours to my office?
Mr. Eagen. I think it will be difficult to do that.
Mr. LaHood. Why? Particularly given the fact during the
entire time that these processes have been in place, you
haven't found one anthrax letter except for the one that was
delivered to Senator Daschle's office, and I know that there
was anthrax found in Mr. Pence's office and also another office
up on one of the top floors of Longworth. But given the fact
during this entire period of time there have been no letters
delivered to Members of Congress with anthrax in them, at some
point don't you reach the point where you say, maybe we can go
back to some more normalcy.
It is fine what Zach said about a paperless system, but I
represent 20 counties in central Illinois. Some people can't
afford to do anything other than to write a letter, hoping that
some day it will reach their Congressman or their Senator. And
I am wondering if you made the decision or somebody made the
decision because there was anthrax in a piece of mail or some
pieces of mail to Senators, that since there hasn't been any in
a long time, do we ever think about maybe going back to a
system where eventually it won't take 6 months to reach a
Member of Congress?
Mr. Eagen. I definitely think forward to the idea of
achieving a system where it doesn't take 6 months or 3 weeks.
But the fact remains even with the scenario of last fall, the
perpetrators of the Leahy and Daschle letters haven't been
found; the individuals that did what they did last fall to my
knowledge are not in the hands of law enforcement officials. So
maybe they are the only ones in the world that are going to do
something like this. Even they are still out there, and they
probably could do it again.
Alternative Mail Solutions
Mr. LaHood. So is what you are saying until we find the
people who sent the mail to Mr. Daschle and Mr. Leahy that we
are not even going to think about going back to some sort of
normalcy of this system of delivering mail to the U.S. Capitol?
Is that sort of your benchmark, that once these people are
apprehended that maybe you are going to think about going back
to normalcy?
We haven't found bin Laden but we are not waging the same
kind of war because we have done a lot of the people in over
there. But bin Laden is still out there somewhere.
Mr. Eagen. Absolutely not and I think exploring solutions
like digitization of the mail and working with the postal
system to make the system as speedy as possible is what we need
to do for the near term. But the guidance I have received from
the leadership of the institution is that we do not want to be
put in a situation where House office buildings have to be
closed again for 6 weeks or 7 weeks or 8 weeks at a time and
that we need to have the security protocols in place to protect
the institution from those kinds of scenarios, and I proceeded
with that mission in mind.
MAIL PROCESSING RAYBURN
Mr. LaHood. Well, with respect to the processing of mail in
the basement of the Rayburn parking garage, there is a group
down there that is processing mail in an area where cars are
supposed to be parked. The people there are violating the
Federal law by smoking cigarettes; I didn't think you were
supposed to smoke in a Federal facility. That is a mess down
there, Jay. I don't know who is responsible for it, but you got
people actually sitting in the right-of-way where people are
backing their cars up and people pulling their cars in and it
is not a very professional way to process mail, and I don't
know if you are in charge of it or not but I want you to look
into it.
It needs to be eliminated. It is a mess down there. The
people that are down there have been found to be sleeping--I
don't know who they are working for, if they are under your
jurisdiction, but I want you to look into it and something
needs to be done. It is not a professional way to be processing
mail in a building and it is not the area that it should be
done in.
Mr. Eagen. It is my responsibility and I will look into it.
EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER
Mr. LaHood. Let me ask you about another one of my favorite
subjects, and I don't know if anybody did a study with respect
to some kind of a gymnasium or a facility for the employees of
Capitol Hill that we had talked about a year or so ago and
included some language in the bill last year to look at that.
Can you give us a report?
Mr. Eagen. I can. The appropriations bill directed that the
CAO in connection with the Architect--and we did an interim
report in January where we did a survey of the campus and
identified potential physical spaces where a facility could be
established. We visited a number of other facilities in the
Washington Metropolitan Area that were in similarly situated
organizations and found potential business models that met the
standards that were in the request, which is to have a self-
supporting facility. The next step that we recommended in the
study that we are undertaking now is actually to do a survey of
the staff to determine the level of interest.
Mr. LaHood. Is that being done?
Mr. Eagen. That is going to be done the end of this month.
Mr. LaHood. How are you going to do that?
Mr. Eagen. We hired Booz Allen Hamilton to do the survey
for us and they will ask what kind of physical facilities would
you like to be available to you, what kind of fees would you
like to pay as far as monthly and initiation fee, how far would
you walk from your office, what times of day would you use the
facility. That would help us craft the business model.
Mr. LaHood. Do you have a time model when you know that is
going to be sent out and then calculated and all that sort of
stuff?
Mr. Eagen. The survey is scheduled to go out the end of
this month.
Mr. LaHood. I guess the firm then will provide the results
to you?
Mr. Eagen. Right.
Mr. LaHood. And then you will mull it over and make some
recommendation to us?
Mr. Eagen. Yes, I think I will go back to that and apply
that to a business model or potential business models that you
may want to consider as to what the business solution to the
House is budget-wise.
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. LaHood. Who is responsible for the new mechanisms that
we have for people entering the Capitol out here, the new--I
don't know what the term of art is, but all the security out
here. Is that you, Bill?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Is that permanent or temporary?
Mr. Livingood. Talking about out on the south barricade,
where that is?
Mr. LaHood. Correct.
Mr. Livingood. That is temporary. The construction which
you see, which is humongus out there on the south is for the
Visitor Center. They are putting in the utility lines. That is
why the whole area almost as wide as this room is ongoing and
that is expected to be finished, I think, the first week of
May. Don't hold to me to that, but I think that is what the
Architect said.
Mr. Trandahl. Bill, I don't mean to jump in. I am going to
correct you a little bit. The Architect will be appearing
before the subcommittee, and they will be able to give you much
more in the way of construction timetables. Actually what will
happen is the construction that is going on out there right
now, the utility relocation for the Visitor Center would have
disrupted all the utilities that run into the building. They
will finish the first half of that phase I believe on May 7 and
the drive as it is right now will flip. Where we are walking
and driving now will become the construction site and what they
are working on right now will be finished to a point where we
will be walking and driving on that side. And I think that will
take another 5 or 6 weeks and it will be finished.
ARCHITECT BRIEFING
Mr. Hoyer. Bob Ney and I have asked the Architect and the
Officers to prepare a full briefing for all Members on what is
going on. I know you get asked and I get asked every day what
is going on, so that the Members will have a full briefing on
present status, timeframes, what is permanent and what is not
permanent. Hopefully they are also getting graphics as to what
it will look like.
Mr. LaHood. When is that going to take place?
Mr. Taylor. We will have the Architect here tomorrow.
Mr. Hoyer. They are trying to get renderings because when I
met with them I said Members want to know what it is going to
look like because they want some expectation that this isn't
going to look horrific. The Visitor Center is going to be 3 to
4 years in construction, so we are going to be under this for
some period of time. But Members need to know what is the
Visitor Center, what is security and what it is going to look
like at stages and at the end. And we are trying to do it as
soon as possible because Members have a great deal of interest.
Mr. Taylor. We will receive more explanation tomorrow at
the Architects hearing.
Mr. LaHood. I have heard a rumor they are not going to
allow Members to drive their cars onto the plaza. And if that
is a fact and not a rumor, you need to be prepared for the idea
that there is going to be a lot of screaming around here from
Members who cannot walk from their offices to the Capitol
either underground or above ground. So we need to be prepared
for that.
CORRECTIONS CALENDAR
Let me just finish, if I can, Mr. Chairman. Who is
responsible for the line item called the Corrections Calendar?
Anybody here or is that----
Mr. Trandahl. The Speaker's office runs the Corrections
Calendar.
Mr. LaHood. Should I ask somebody in the Speaker's office?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Should I tell him you had a scared look on your
face?
I will just make this point, in this session for the last
year-and-a-half, I don't know of any activity with respect to
the Corrections Calendar. Maybe there has been. But I will
check with Ted on this, but the Corrections Calendar budget is
going from $883,000 to $915,000. But, I will talk to Ted about
that.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just finish by saying I want to
associate myself with what everyone has said about the
extraordinary way that all of you folks have performed. I think
all of us were scared not to death, but pretty scared by what
happened on 9/11 and I think could not have been more reassured
than by what all of you have done collectively and the people
that work for you, and so you have done great work. You really
have.
And I think Zach put it the best that he could and I want
to associate myself with him, but I also want to say the big
thank you to all of you and all of the people who work in the
Capitol who don't get any thanks for all the extraordinary work
that goes on around here.
Mr. Taylor. Ms. Kaptur.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Ms. Kaptur. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed listening
this morning and, as my colleagues, I want to thank all of you.
Dr. Eisold, you are quite photogenic on television, by the
way. I wish I could say the same about myself. And thank you
for the tremendous service that you provided to our families
and members not just on 9/11, but to the whole country really,
and your composure and your professionalism and your service
was very evident. So we thank you and thank your family for
producing you letting us share you with the country.
Mr. Livingood, also the service you provided to us as
Members--though the first day was very confusing, I have that
memory. This has changed my life. I love this. And I think it
is very important that regardless of what happens in the future
that we be allowed to function. I know it was very
disheartening to me, I happened to be up at Bethesda at 9
o'clock that morning--on 9/11 I happened to be up at Bethesda
when all of that happened just trying to call in here and then
trying to find the Speaker that day urging him not to shut down
the broadcast facilities or to have alternate locations so we
could at least keep broadcasting across the country. I thought
that was so important, but just to locate him.
I actually found a connection to him by calling into the
Physician's office here, since I was up at Bethesda Naval,
saying I need to find the Speaker, how do I get to the Speaker?
And someone was sitting in his office was able to get a message
to him. And then the next day--not that my message made a
difference, but at least we were able to function. And just
going through that experience and not feeling like you were
connected to the main ship here, that you weren't able to get
in was a very discomforting feeling, and so I support all
efforts to keep us functional.
We are our Country's first line of defense on the political
front, and we ought to be present visually and in an audio
nature, and I know people are talking about how to make sure
that that happens regardless of what might happen to the
Capitol area itself, and I fully support that effort.
I don't want to go over the ground that has already been
plowed but in general I think it is important for everyone in
our country to think about what this teaches us and what we
need to do to change the future. That is really our job and
each of us has a special responsibility there. And to some of
the future witnesses that come before us I am going to be
asking a lot about the way we in the Capitol and the way we
behave and conduct our lives can set an example for the
country.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
For example, even in the way we generate power and the way
we purchase it, the way we produce it, what example could we
better set here in the way we function? We will have the
Botanical Gardens up this afternoon, and I want to ask them
questions about photovoltaics, about heating and cooling in
that facility. And if I have a major economic goal, it is to
sever this country's connection with imported fuels of all
kinds, because it has too often become a proxy for our foreign
policy.
So my first question, and I think each of us in whatever
dollars we spend and whatever dollars we have under our
jurisdiction, we have to think about this. I want to ask Mr.
Livingood if you could perhaps comment a bit--I was looking at
the Capitol fleet and I think you own about 117 vehicles. At
least that was the list I was given, and I know there are some
plans to purchase some additional vehicles. I am going to
submit for the record a list of alternative fuel vehicles that
are manufactured by companies in our country, which largely are
not--where? You don't have any auto plants in California but
one, so you are dependent on our region of the country for
that. But even most of these vehicles can be purchased.
[Clerk's note.--The vehicle inventory of the Capitol Police
and a listing of alternative fuel vehicles provided for the
record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES CONTINUED
Ms. Kaptur. It is interesting, most of these vehicles can
be purchased but you can't buy the fuel. But if you want a real
vivid example of where we are really that just brings this
whole thing into perspective, where the Pentagon got hit, if
you go up around the road and you face it, you are going to see
a little gas station up there called Citgo, only place in the
Capitol region where you can buy ethanol. I don't think you can
buy biodiesel there yet. But I think we have a major
responsibility even in the small fleet that you have
responsibility for here, sir, I think people here would help
you--how do we get America to change their habits to see there
was a different way to the future.
I thought there was no more vivid site for me than to look
at the hole in the Pentagon and to see that little gas station
frame and think to myself, oh, this is interesting, we are hit
in the heart of our Nation's defense and there sits that little
pump Citgo and that oil comes from Venezuela and that
government almost toppled over the weekend. And now prices for
many of our derivative products are going to go up because of
what happened there.
So I just wanted to ask, many of the vehicles you currently
have--there are four Ford Tauruses, 12 Chevy Suburbans, 1 Chevy
Tahoe, 5 Ford Explorers, 1 Ford van, 9 Chevy vans, 3 Chevy
pickups--they all can accommodate alternative fuels. I wanted
to ask if you have ever given any thought to this and also in
the new purchases that you are going to be doing whether you
have given serious consideration to purchasing vehicles that do
not depend on petroleum as the source of their fuel.
Mr. Livingood. To answer your question, 4 years ago we
looked at alternative fuel vehicles and we tried to go to a
couple manufacturers and see if we could just borrow some to
see how they worked. At that time, the world has changed now,
but at that time they were not very receptive in allowing us to
borrow some. And we wanted to do that before we purchased them
just so we knew the pickup; if they are patrol cars, do they
have enough pickup to stop a vehicle. One of our concerns is
that a lot of our vehicles are used in other locations than
just the Metropolitan Area here, our dignitary cars, when we
have congressional events outside the city. But we will--in
fact the chief administrative officer from the Capitol Police
is in the hearing today and we will look at that again.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, you know I would just say as one Member
of Congress, and I bet I could get a good dirty dozen to come
with me, we would be happy to sit down with the CEOs of the
largest manufacturers in this country and for the sake of the
Nation try to help you find some alternatives. I think it is
time we have to change and we all have to be a part of that.
And wouldn't that be wonderful to be able to help to change the
habits here and give a good example to the rest of the country?
ETHANOL VEHICLES
Mr. LaHood. Would you yield? I have no doubt the Illinois
corn growers would be able to provide you with as many ethanol
driven cars as you would like. They drive them all over
Illinois, and I am sure they would provide you as many demos as
you would like to try.
Ms. Kaptur. And one of my dreams--I don't know where your
officers purchase their fuel, but I want a pump up here where I
can buy the fuel for my car and I can't get it. You cannot get
it here.
Mr. Lewis. Would the gentlelady yield? I really apologize
for doing this. But some years ago I was heavily involved in
the air quality business in California. I had a bill that would
require all cars that had a place they came back to at night to
be able to be run by propane. An associate from the University
of California Riverside came to me and said, hey, wait a
minute, Jerry. We developed this idea but now we are learning
that propane, when it goes through the combustion process,
mixes with sunlight and forms a thing called propylene that may
be worse.
But in the meantime we were dealing with Detroit in those
days trying to look for improvement in gas mileage, et cetera,
et cetera. I have to tell you I have never seen a more
nonresponsive group than those major automobile producers here
in the United States. I am not surprised they don't have a car
to lend you. I am sure they are all using them themselves. In
the meantime don't get your hopes up. It is a long, long ways
before they are to really help us.
When OPEC came along, gas mileage improved. It didn't
improve until then.
Ms. Kaptur. I don't disagree with my good friend from
California, and I have the highest respect for him and there
has been no committee that has tried harder than our defense
subcommittees to access vehicles over at DOD, and the Postal
Service, by the way, has the best record in the Government of
the United States in terms of purchasing and R&D related to new
fuels and new vehicles. I would love to bring in these CEOs. I
deal with them all the time and sometimes the national
interest----
Mr. Lewis. I must confess to the gentlelady, I converted a
1965 Ford convertible, a beautiful vehicle, to be able to run
on propane. You know, that baby never ran again.
Ms. Kaptur. I have submitted this information for the
record and I would very much enjoy meeting with the
representatives of these corporations here, and I am going to
ask the gentleman to submit additional information about your
future purchases of vehicles that are----
Mr. Livingood. I will commit to you that we will look
strongly at purchasing vehicles with alternative fuel.
FOOD QUALITY
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very much. I have an additional
question, Mr. Chairman, and that relates to food quality. I
heard what Mr. Eagen said about these studies that were done.
And as a member of the Agriculture Committee, it is interesting
the term you used is what is in the machines met the
expectations. I don't know what that means, but I have been
amazed since my early years of service here to look at what is
in the vending machines here and I don't know who hires or get
the foods that is served in the cloakroom. That is the highest
sugar, highest fat, least nutritious food I have ever seen. And
you can't even get celery sticks. Maybe the guys around here
like eating all this stuff. But the doctor takes care of them
at the output end. And I think if I have a plea, it is that
nutrient quality, not sugar, rich fat, be the only way we
provide food in this--we should look at a set of alternatives,
certainly in the vending machines. I don't know how we get
these vending machines in here, whether we are paid by some
vendor to take the machine or we pay a fee. We have high sugar
in those drinks. You can't get a bottle of pure juice in this
Capitol. Once in awhile you can get an apple. But if you were
to do a survey of what is sold here in terms of food, it is
absolutely junk.
And it is the same message we give to every child in this
country when we have these vending machines in our schools, and
that is why a third of our kids are obese. We have the worst
problem growing up across this country coast to coast, and we
perpetrate that here. I am not asking you to get rid of the
junk food. I am just asking you to fill the other half of the
carousel windows with good food. How do I accomplish that in
this Capitol?
Mr. Eagen. I am the man that can try to do it for you.
Ms. Kaptur. We would be pleased to bring people from the
Department of Agriculture Nutrition Service in here to identify
product lines and to find a way to provide nutritious food to
the people who work here as well as those that visit. So I
thank you very much, very much for that.
I have some questions that I will submit to be answered for
the record regarding the food quality and artwork.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Nutritional Quality of Food Served in House Facilities
Question. I am concerned about the nutritional quality of food
served in House facilities. I pass by the vending machines in the
Rayburn building several times each day and have noticed an absence of
nutritious choices for Members and staff. Is the nutritional quality of
these foods a factor in the contracts you have with the vending
companies?
Response. Our contract with the food service vendors states, ``The
variety and appearance of food shall be consistent with approved food
service industry standards.''. The vending in the Rayburn subway area
is primarily used as a quick service area. While more variety and
nutritious selections are available in the 24-hour vending area, we
have asked Vending Services, Inc., the vending subcontractor for Guest
Services, Inc. to add more nutritious and healthy snack foods.
Question. Please tell us who are the vendors and for how long the
contracts run.
Response. Ford House Office Building--Skenteris Family Inc;
Capitol--Guest Services, Inc.; Cannon House Office Building--Guest
Services, Inc.; Longworth House Office Building--Guest Services, Inc.;
Rayburn House Office Building--Guest Services, Inc.; Vending
subcontractor--Vending Services, Inc.; Catering subcontractors--Uptown
Catering, Ridgewell's Catering.
Ridgewell's Uptown and Vending Services Inc. are subcontractors
under the Guest Services contract.
The base period for the Guest Services, Inc. contract runs until
December 19, 2002. The base period for the Skenteris contract expires
on September 15, 2004.
Question. What can be done to improve the selection of items
available, along with making certain that there is greater similarity
of offerings between the vending machines in Rayburn and Longworth?
Response. A new 24-hour vending are will be added in the Rayburn
House Office Building when the Rayburn Cafeteria renovation is
completed. This new area will feature cold food vending machines with
more nutritious and healthier offerings.
Question. Similarly what concern is given to the nutritional
content of the foods served in our cafeterias? I have noticed in the
Rayburn cafeteria that there are days when the vegetable choices
include several starches rather than a good variety. Certainly the
options can be improved upon.
Response. Guest Services, Inc. is revising the menu for all their
cafeterias. They will include more seasonal fresh vegetables.
Question. Do you know if anyone has ever given any thought to
posting the nutritional profile of the foods being offered so that
people can make more informed choices?
Response. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with Guest Services,
Inc. to publish the nutritional profile of their menus. We agree that
this would be a valuable consumer service.
Artwork in the Capitol
Question. What steps, if any, have been taken to respond to the
concerns regarding the representativeness of artwork?
Response. In addition to the new resources within the Legislative
Resource Center, several new works of art are being created for the
Capitol that reflect the diversity of citizens who have played
important roles in our history. Statues of two Native American women,
Sarah Winnemucca and Sacagawea, have been commissioned for inclusion in
the National Statuary Hall Collection. Amelia Earhart will possibly be
the subject of a statue in the same collection.
The creation of a curatorial specialist enhances the ability of the
House to research and locate potential artwork for acquisition and
loan, and the position puts into place staff to research and coordinate
the commissioning of additional art.
Question. What is currently in the House inventory of artwork that
represents women and their contribution to our country? Please specify
whether it is displayed or in storage.
Response. To date, Historical Services and the Architect of the
Capitol have identified 20 women of achievement depicted in House
artworks. Of those works, 18 are on display and two are in storage (see
Table HS-1). In addition, there are several paintings depicting events
in American history that include women, such as the Allyn Cox mural
segment of the 1917 woman suffrage parade. Because an authoritative
catalog of the House Collection is in process, Historical Services is
not able to provide a complete count of this artwork.
Women artists are also represented in House artwork. To date, 53
works by women artists have been identified, including fifteen in the
National Statuary Hall Collection (see Table HS-2).
Question. As you know, I have a great interest in being sure that
the artwork that is on display in the Capitol more fairly represent all
of those who have contributed to our nation's history, including women.
This committee has been very clear in recent years regarding
expectations that this situation be corrected so that women are more
fairly represented in our displayed collection. With respect to the
House of Representatives, what changes have been made over the past
three years with respect to what artwork is displayed?
Response. The first step towards bringing greater diversity to the
artwork of the House is to identify what already exists. Until
recently, the House has relied upon the efforts of the AOC curator, in
addition to its usual responsibilities, to identify and track House
artwork. Two years ago the Office of the Clerk created within the
Legislative Resource Center the Historical Services section, and this
year a curatorial specialist was added to Historical Services. This has
provided the House with the resources with which to identify gaps in
the collection. The curatorial specialist can assist the AOC curator in
carrying out this inventory. Historical Services staff can then
identify individuals, groups, and events that are missing from the
collection.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CAPITOL SAFETY
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Livingood,
I would like to congratulate you on your good judgment on
buying all those Chevrolets. I don't want to go over the ground
that has been plowed and harrowed. But I would like to add my
words of appreciation for what you and your people as a class
have done to protect us here and to make this system work in
very unusual times. I do think, however, as representatives of
650,000 people, we have to be able to take a certain amount of
risk for ourselves and there is no way we can shut the place
down and make it totally safe. We have to make the decisions
that we can make, the threat assessment, and reduce the risks
as much as we can, but the only way you can make it totally
safe is for us to go home and stick our head in a hole and that
is not what we want to do and that is not what we are elected
to do.
On the mail--and I realize we have spent an awful lot of
time on it, but it is a very serious problem because it is the
way so many of our constituents still contact their
Congressmen. And I received a letter yesterday that was
postmarked in the second week of October. So we still have
those problems. And I think if we accept that level of service,
we are sort of in a perverse way contributing to the problems
that the Postal Service is having nationally right now. I mean
their total financial performance since 9/11 has gone down the
tubes and we have got to continue to help work that out. And I
know that you have to have your security protocols, but somehow
that has to be worked out where the system works. We can't be
running a government where we are getting information from the
people we represent that was sent in October.
CAPITOL TOURS
Enough said. Mr. Livingood, the tours of the Capitol, and
when I say that we have to accept a certain amount of
responsibility for our own safety and take a certain amount of
risk if we are going to have this wonderful job of representing
650,000 Americans, I just would encourage you as you go forward
in that to make sure the system is not so safe that it doesn't
work. We still have to get our kids through the Capitol, and
your people, whenever I call, they are very, very cooperative,
but it is getting to be--the rules seem to change everyday. And
anything we can do--I don't think that there is--if we shut it
down so we can't take our school kids through the Capitol of
the United States, I think the terrorists have won in a certain
regard and I would like your comment on that.
Mr. Livingood. You are correct. We are doing everything
possible. We are meeting on tours every other day. This is one
of our top priorities, from this committee and the Committee on
House Administration. They are calling us every day. We have
doubled the number of tours in the last 3 weeks, doubled on the
South Door, and we have positioned guides out there. And you
will find when you walk by in the afternoon, there is barely--I
haven't seen more than 15, 20 people there waiting to get into
tours, where there used to be maybe 100, 150. So I think we
have made substantial gains.
Plus when I walk in the afternoon or around this time, late
morning, the Capitol is much fuller than it has been. So I
think that we are trying to address the school groups. We have
some other alternative solutions. The board meets early next
week, at least from the House side are presenting some
additional means to get people into the building. Where we are
slow is on the public tour because we have the East Front
screening center and that can only handle X number of people
per hour to get them screened to get in.
We have a new screening facility going on or being built
right by my office. It is the southeast corner of the building,
and that will be finished and ready for business May 20. That
will put more people into the building safely, but I think it
will address both our concerns.
Mr. Sherwood. I just would like to reiterate my thought,
the only way we will be totally safe is if we totally cease to
function. And so I would encourage you to make those decisions
knowing that we have to accept some risk. I think if we are
going to be leader of the free world, we have to accept some
risk.
COMPUTER SUPPORT
Mr. Eagen, we get wonderful service on our computers and
that sort of stuff generally through the vendors that are set
up with your office. The suggestion that I would have is that
sometimes--sometimes--if we are making a change, we ask what
functions will be lost in the transition and sometimes there is
some information lost there; in other words, we try to set up a
big transition and we got it all done and it is all done but we
lost some functions for a few days in the meantime that they
didn't inform us we were going to lose, and that again goes to
the issue of how responsive and how effective our offices are.
And it ties in--we can't be effective if we don't get our mail.
It is hard to be effective if our computer systems aren't up
and running, and I just ask that maybe there should be a
checklist developed so that when you make a change the offices
are informed of what we are going to lose during the change.
Mr. Eagen. We have something similar to that. Let me try to
describe it to you and see if it meets your needs. Three years
ago we started a program called a correspondence management
system evaluation program. When we learned that one of the
vendors is going to change its software, whether it is ACS or
InterAmerica or any of the other seven or eight that are doing
business on the Hill, we require them to submit it to us with
their marketing, and we literally have set up a lab down in
House Information Resources where we install the system. We
have a database that is similar to the size that most Members
have and we run that software through the paces and we measure
it against the marketing that they are claiming of what it can
and can't do and then we write up a report. We give the vendor
a chance to respond to that report and depending on how they
respond we do one of two things. We either reject the software
because it doesn't match up to the marketing or we say it is
okay, but then we publish the report on the Web as kind of a
consumer reports information piece. So that is available to
your systems administrator, and every time a vendor is planning
a software upgrade we go through that regimen.
TECHNOLOGY VENDOR SURVEY
Second, a year ago we started a contract with a combination
of the Congressional Management Foundation and the Gartner
Group. The Gartner Group is a leading technology consulting
firm, and they did a survey of all systems administrators of
customer satisfaction with the various CMS programs, was it
performing, was it doing what it was supposed to do, what kind
of service level are you getting in terms of the vendor being
there when you need them and all those kinds of things. And we
came up literally with ratings of the various vendors and their
products.
The survey is in the field for a repeat of that right now,
and we hope to have that report out in the next couple of
months before we get into the year-end buying season that
usually occurs around here as Members consider upgrading their
systems. The idea is now we have got a benchmark of a year-and-
a-half ago or 2 years ago and will now show what kind of
progress the vendors made in terms of those that were weak, did
they improve, those that were strong, did they get better, so
forth and so on.
Mr. Sherwood. I think it is our responsibility in our
congressional offices to use our Congressional office as an
example to the general public that government works, and we
have to get our mail, our computers have to work, and we have
to have our system set up in a tickler file so we know all that
stuff goes back out, and I thought in my office we had that
stuff working pretty well and since 9/11 the level of service
that we have given our consumers, our constituents, has dropped
significantly and we all have to work together to get that back
up.
And I would like to add my voice to the committee to thank
your people for all their hard work and sacrifice in this time,
and we very much appreciate it.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. Lewis.
ALTERNATE DATA CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Livingood, friends, welcome. I have a number of
questions. To begin with: 9/11. We have heard time and time
again how that day caused us to rethink where we have been.
Among other things I found fascinating is when those two
buildings came down in New York, there were within them the
central operations of some of our major financial institutions
who depend upon information to carry forward their work, and
responsibilities--responsibilities that are dramatically
important to our economy. I learned that many of these people
had anticipated the need for alternative availability of that
information if something should happen to the systems in the
building--I don't know if they thought their computers would
fail or what. There was backup storage relative to that.
I had questions about the Pentagon relative to the same
issue after the plane crashed into it and learned that we were
at least in the beginning stages of backup storage efforts at
places like Fort Belvoir. A lot of money was being spent to
make sure that data and information was available in a timely
fashion regardless of crises.
The Capitol has similar needs and I wonder if somebody can
tell me what we are doing and what the prospects are to make
sure we can function if our information systems were wiped out.
Mr. Eagen. That is my responsibility and we are probably
more like the DOD characterization that you did, that you made
than we are Wall Street. We have a number of capabilities in
place that allow us to remotely operate the systems and we have
backup regimens in place for the central mission critical
systems for the House. What we don't have is redundancy for
those systems, and one of the proposals that was in the
emergency supplemental for last fall is for the legislative
branch to create an off-site alternative data center to
undertake that mission. The House has already begun acquiring
the front end of those kinds of capabilities.
Mr. Lewis. What do you mean?
Mr. Eagen. What is called the Secure Area Network. It would
be equipment where the data as it is worked here on the House
side is automatically copied.
Mr. Lewis. So you are replicating the data and equipment?
Mr. Eagen. Replicating the data through specialized
equipment that serves that function. So if the facility in the
Ford Building on the sixth floor were lost, we would still be
able to function, yes, sir.
COSTS FOR ALTERNATE DATA CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Would you submit for the record what the current
costs are and what you anticipate the costs to be for the
center so we have an idea?
[The information requested for the record follows:]
The estimated cost of the actual build out (data center
infrastructure) is approximately $27 million. Included in this estimate
are all systems currently operating within the House, Data Networks and
Voice communications. The cost of sustaining these operations will be
approximately $3 million per year for the first two years and $6
million per year for the third and fourth year (due to life cycle
replacements).
Final costs associated with the property are still being
negotiated.
MEMBERS' GYM
Mr. Lewis. I especially want to welcome Dr. Eisold to the
meeting today. The health of Members is an item of interest to
many, especially to the individual member who may have health
problems one way or another. I happen to have a great facility
in California where there is a lot of experimental work that
goes on at Loma Linda University Medical Center. They do all
kinds of experimental things relative to how we get my hair
grayer and things of that kind.
I am very impressed by the services available to Members,
and it is very important to not have physicians just sitting
around waiting for a heart attack to occur or responding to a
specific health emergency that is unexpected but rather to have
a broader understanding of Member health issues. I would like
to ask Dr. Eisold questions about that general membership.
Well, let me first make a point: the gym is an interesting
facility around here and what the percentage is of Members who
use those exercise facilities I have no idea. But I do find the
swimming pool empty a lot and it causes me to wonder. We have a
guy who is a trained physical therapist down there, but unless
a Member asks for specific ideas about what they might do
better, there is a little interaction with health experts, not
nearly as much as there might be. Have you ever spent any time
in our gym? Have you worked out there?
Dr. Eisold. I do not use a gym here. I use a gym near my
home. It is too busy during the day to go away myself and use
the House gym, but I work closely with the House gym and with
people in the gym and have toured the gym, so I am very much
aware of its capabilities. I think what you touch on is
probably the hardest thing to do in medicine, and Congresswoman
Kaptur touched on it, too, when she talked about nutrition. It
requires individual discipline, will power and scheduling to go
to the gym or eat the right things. And our job, either the
people in the gym or my office, is to keep pushing those
concepts with people like yourself or other people not using
the gym.
MEMBERS' HEALTH
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I have often suggested and have
had some interaction with physicians of the Capitol in the past
about what might be the valuable result, especially for the
young Navy physicians who are here, of programming exercise
regimens that would specifically attack or impact the problems
of individual Members, and actually be selling this to Members
that they ought to be actively involved. And there is a good
deal of money spent in this budget, and I think that would be a
very exciting prospect for physicians who are interested in
preventive medicine, and I am wondering if we couldn't use a
significant piece of this budget to accomplish that.
I notice that between 2001 and the proposed budget there is
a huge decrease. It seems to me we could go a long ways towards
educating Members about being more intensely aware of the
importance of health relative to productivity.
Dr. Eisold. Again, I think prevention, and you and I have
had this dialogue before, prevention is really the most
important aspect of the delivery of care. Primary prevention
before things happen is key. All those capabilities are
available to us in our present configuration, and our access to
the Members is only limited by the Members' own desire to come
down and be available. I think that everybody knows how
accessible we are, and certainly it was no more visible than
during the fall. We can be everywhere at any time and we are on
a daily basis. The door is always open. And when people are
voting, they are not very far from us.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman----
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Ms. Kaptur. Would the gentleman yield for a second? I want
to endorse what you are suggesting, having served here long
enough to see what has happened to many of my friends and
colleagues over the years because of the pressure of this job
and the lack of attention to their personal health. And let me
speak on behalf of the women Members if I just might, because I
don't know if the money is in this budget for the women's
facility or not, but over the years trying to get equity in
that has been an interesting journey and we are there now. But
in terms of actual programming, we have to be programmed. We
are programmed every minute of every day and we have to get
this in.
Frankly, I even thought doing a Weight Watchers class.
Well, if we can't do it through these facilities, let us do
Weight Watchers. They seem to be able to know how to do it.
Some of our Members have gone on the wackiest diets I have ever
seen, and it is not good for their health. You talk about
prevention. If you call it diet, you will get a bigger turnout,
take my word for it, because everybody has some idea of some
diet that they are on here.
But people need to attend to their health. We need a
programmed way to do that. We have facilities, we just don't
have--what you are saying--we don't seem to have the personnel
in place or anybody interested in prevention and health that
helps us tailor programs to whatever group of individuals might
want. And I really after 2 decades of service this has been
needed for a long time. And when you look at the number of hard
cases we come up with here and all the different things that
happen to people I couldn't believe the number of people who
has collapsed intestines because of poor diets and stress. And
it just seems to me that we will save money in the long run
because we won't be having all these illnesses.
I just support you so much in what you are saying, and I
hope that there could be a more organized way of reaching out
to the Membership, including the women, so we can--and
generally you are not available at noon. I mean you have to do
it after work or before work. And so I think people would do it
if we could have a little leadership on the prevention side. So
I wanted to endorse you.
PARKING
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, if I could mention another item.
Even in your State, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
some of the major employers, even the banks, provide no cost
parking for their staff and executives. Sometime ago--this
place is so nutty, the Members believe in self flagellation and
we like to put flags out about how much we beat ourselves over
the head--we began deciding to charge people for parking spots
in the Capitol. I mean, that is really a nutty idea and I would
ask one of my financial experts who has done so much for his
own State to review that kind of idiotic policy as it relates
to the individual Members and others around here.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. If members have other
questions, please submit them for the record. We have covered
many areas here today. Gentlemen, we appreciate your
appearance. I would say to our Members it is the House Members
that are going to determine what happens in the House. These
gentlemen advise. They carry out our responsibility. But if we
want to change this, don't blame it on them. We have to change
it ourselves and direct them to do it, and I appreciate your
willingness to do that. Thank you, gentlemen.
STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Hoyer. Could I ask a brief question? The Legislative
Counsel is here, and I would like to ask about a student-loan
repayment program because we are talking about that in the
House Administration Committee. Could you comment on that how
useful that would be for your office?
Mr. Barrow. I can comment on that. Our greatest challenge
is recruitment and retention. I think it will be a big
incentive for those people to stay in our office. We lost a few
recruits in recent years because the heavy burden of student
loans is something of great concern to prospective applicants,
some of whom have loans totaling as much as $100,000.
Mr. Hoyer. And competitors are offering to assist with
those.
Mr. Barrow. At this point it is available in the Senate and
the entire executive branch. The House of Representatives is
really the only agency in the executive and legislative
branches of the Federal Government that does not participate in
a student loan repayment program.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, that is the key. The Senate is
offering this benefit and other executive agencies are offering
it, and we are starting to lose people to the Senate. And the
Speaker has been very good on getting us more competitive, but
that is something we need to focus on.
Mr. Taylor. Gentlemen, thank you very much and we
appreciate your job.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Hoyer follow.]
Public Tours
Question. At present, persons taking public tours of the Capitol
may not visit the House or Senate Galleries when the bodies are not in
session. This is disappointing to Capitol visitors. Are there plans to
permit tour groups to visit the galleries when the House are not in
session?
Response. We continue to review opening galleries to visitors when
the House is not in session. However, due to lack of USCP manpower we
are unable to adequately staff the galleries at this time. As staffing
levels increase it is our goal to re-open the galleries for visitor
access.
FIRE PROTECTION
Question. Last year, as the House Inspector General, you reported
that you were satisfied with the pace of progress on fire-protection
work in the House and the Library, such as upgrading fire-protection
systems. But you expressed concerns about progress on development of
routine inspections, testing and maintenance schedules. Are things
where they need to be in this respect, in your judgment?
Response. As we reported, the AOC had not developed a comprehensive
maintenance, inspection, and testing plan. There is an immediate need
for such a plan. To date, the AOC has not yet completed such a plan.
However, since our report, they have initiated actions for the
development of a plan. Both House and Library Superintendents have each
recently added a contracted fire protection engineer to their
respective staffs to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. In
addition, contracts have been awarded for the required annual
inspection of the fire protection systems. These are initial steps in
the right direction that must be followed through to complete the
development of a comprehensive maintenance, inspection, and testing
plan. We will continue to monitor and report on their progress.
HOUSE ART WORK
Question. What are your long-term plans for maintaining House
antiquities and artwork? How can the House improve its management of
these treasures?
Response. The key element in planning for the House collection's
well-being is a complete collection inventory, which the AOC curator is
in the process of creating. The results of this inventory--which will
include assessments of current condition and exhibition--will determine
the collection management needs of House artwork. Historical Services
has begun coordinating with the AOC curator in assisting with the task
of cataloging the House collection.
Question. How will your new curatorial staff interface with
existing functions in the Architect's office and the Senate?
Response. Long term planning for the maintenance, acquisition, and
interpretation of the House collection will require close cooperation
among Historical Services, the AOC curator, and the Senator curator.
Historical Services has initiated a series of meetings with these other
entities in order to share institutional knowledge, coordinate our
collective efforts, and prevent duplication of effort.
Question. Do you have recommendations about how to improve
procedures for accepting and maintaining portraits received by House
Committees?
Response. The curatorial function within Historical Services
creates additional resources for providing guidelines to House
committees and for monitoring the progress of acquisitions. Historical
Services is actively evaluating current procedures for accepting and
caring for committee chairman portraits in cooperation with the Fine
Arts Board and the AOC curator.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN
LAURA CAMPBELL, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND
PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
LINDA J. WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
KATHRYN B. MURPHY, BUDGET OFFICER, FINANCIAL SERVICES
Major Elements of the Library's Budget Request
Mr. Taylor. The committee will come back to order. We will
now take up the budget request of the Library of Congress.
We want to welcome Dr. James Billington, Librarian of
Congress, and (retired) General Donald Scott, Deputy Librarian
of the Congress. We are happy to have both of you here, and we
apologize that we asked you to be here at an earlier time and
the prior hearing ran a little longer than we thought. One can
never gauge the interest.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request before the committee
assumes total funds available will be $735.1 million, derived
from a variety of resources, including appropriated funds,
receipts, gift, trust, revolving funds, and reimbursable
programs. The direct appropriations request is $511.5 million
plus authority to spend receipts of $36.6 million. This
request, as were all requests from the agencies of the
legislative branch, has been adjusted by the amount required
for retirement and health insurance accrual. Thus the increase
requested is $29.9 million.
The Library is requesting funding for 169 additional FTE's.
The Library has 4,189 permanent FTE's in the current workforce.
In addition, there are 173 indefinite positions, 32 supported
in administrative jobs by receipts, 6 supported from funds
transferred from other Federal agencies, 51 supported from gift
and trust funds, and 165 supported from revolving funds. In all
the Library has a grand total of 4,785 FTEs.
Introduction of Witnesses
I would like to yield to Mr. Moran if he has any opening
statement, and then we will move on to you, Dr. Billington.
Mr. Moran. That is okay.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Dr. Billington. It is good to see
you and General Scott as always, and we would like you to
introduce your staff that have accompanied you.
Dr. Billington. Well, we have the Director of the
Congressional Research Service Daniel Mulhollan; Associate
Librarian for Library Services, Winston Tabb; our Chief of
Staff, Jo Ann Jenkins; Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters;
Laura Campbell, Associate Librarian for Strategic Initiatives.
Mr. Moran. Could you have them stand? You are just pointing
to the audience there. I would like to know who it is you are
referring to.
Dr. Billington. Laura Campbell, the Associate Librarian for
Strategic Initiatives; Rubens Medina, the Law Librarian; Frank
Kurt Cylke, the Director of the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped; Kenneth Lopez, Director
of Security; Linda Washington, Director of Integrated Support
Services; John Webster, Director of Financial Services; and
Kathryn Murphy, Budget Officer with Financial Services.
So that is the cast.
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, we will be entering your
statement in the record as well as the Register of Copyrights
and the Director of the Congressional Research Service. If you
or General Scott have a short opening statement or any comments
before we go into questions.
Dr. Billington. I think we are ready to answer questions
directly, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of the Librarian, Register of
Copyrights and the Director of the Congressional Research
Service follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HIRING SYSTEM--IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
Mr. Taylor. There are a number of programs, events, and
meetings that the Library provides that they invite all of us
to attend, and I think it is very important for Congress and
the Library of Congress. I urge all of you to attend those
meetings if you possibly can because they are wonderful
opportunities for us to see the Library as well as the
multitude of people around the world that the Library
communicates with, works with and serves.
Dr. Billington, the committee is aware of what seems to be
an ongoing implementation problem with your new automated
hiring system and, because of these problems, you realigned in
the current fiscal year almost $15 million from your salary and
benefit accounts to contract service accounts to get the work
accomplished, for which the committee provided personnel FTE
funding. This $15 million is double the amount provided for new
FTEs for the current fiscal year and is greater than the amount
provided for new FTEs for the prior three fiscal years.
For the benefit of the members, can you explain how this
system was selected and any other comments you would like to
make about it?
Dr. Billington. I am sorry, I am not quite sure. You are
talking about reprogramming or the current appropriation
request?
Mr. Taylor. We are talking about the automated hiring
system.
Dr. Billington. Well, I think, in brief, we have been
implementing a new automated hiring system, which we wanted to
achieve a variety of goals. We wanted to expedite the hiring
process. We wanted to make sure that Amended Appendix B was
fully comported with and exemplified in the new system, and we
wanted to have an efficient, much more rapid hiring system than
we have had in the past. We actually subscribed to a system, we
did not purchase a system. We had a variety of things we had to
do in a fairly short time span in order to satisfy the Amended
Appendix B requirement. We had to move very fast.
As with implementing any new system, there have been some
problems and we are managing them. We have appointed a project
manager, and General Scott has been in charge of implementing
this. It was slow getting started. It has now gathered
considerable momentum, and we are both continuing to hire and
gather momentum and, at the same time, evaluating and
developing standard operating procedures and other matters so
we can evaluate this system against others to see if we want to
continue with this particular service.
But I will let General Scott get into the details because
he has been in charge of this.
SYSTEM SELECTION GOALS
General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Mr. Chairman, we
do have a new system that we are putting in place and, as Dr.
Billington has just expressed, we did have some unanticipated
automation, as well as, process problems in addition to those
we anticipated. Nevertheless, the Library has been able to hire
167 new people under the new system. We expect that with the
apparatus and the evaluation and analysis process that we have
in place right now, that we will be able to hire nearly all of
the people that we need for the rest of 2002--this calendar
year.
You asked, for the benefit of the members, why and how did
we select this system. Basically, there was three goals in
seeking a new system. One, the Library needed a system that met
all the functional requirements of the negotiated settlement
agreement between the Cook Class Plaintiffs and the Library's
Amended Appendix B. Two, we did not want the system to be cost-
prohibitive. And, three, we wanted a system that could be
implemented in a rather short period of time.
With those three goals in mind, we knew that we could not
build a system in-house--that would be too cost-prohibitive--so
we evaluated several systems that are already in the
marketplace. We looked at three systems: Avue, the Office of
Personnel Management's Human Resources Manager, and Resumix.
Because of the three goals that we wanted to meet, we picked
Avue because they were the only vendor that had a system that
met the Amended Appendix B requirements, and they were willing
to work with us to make the system as responsive to our needs
as it possibly could be. That is why we chose that system.
Mr. Taylor. I have some questions that I will submit for
the record regarding the new automated hiring system.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Library's Automated Hiring System
Question. Were your system requirements defined prior to the
selection of the Avue system?
Response. A written system requirements document as defined by
contracting standards had not been developed. However, functional
requirements were identified by the Library. Key factors in determining
the contracting of an automated hiring system included: meeting all the
functional requirements of the draft Amended Appendix B of the Cook
Settlement Agreement (content-valid process), reducing the total time
to bring new staff on board after posting a position, (current system
was taking 178 days), operating within the Library's current budget,
and becoming operational in a rather short period of time--since the
Library only had three months from the court order to implement a
system.
Due to these goals, the Library had to focus on off-the-shelf
systems, as an in-house or fully customized system could not meet the
dollar and time constraints. Avue was the only vendor that had a system
that met all these requirements and that expressed any willingness to
modify their system to meet the unique needs of the Library within the
time frame imposed upon the Library. Avue also indicated that it could
reduce the average number of days required to fill a position to 60
days, a reduction of 118 days from the Library's current system.
Therefore, Avue was chosen and the Library's contract was an add-on to
the existing contract of Veteran's Affairs Department, which was using
the General Services Administration as a contracting officer.
Question. If so, what were the requirements?
Response. Based on the key factors, and guided by a Hiring
Improvement Plan, as well as by the General Accounting Office's
guidelines for automated hiring systems, the Library established the
following functional requirements:
Maintain the Library's position descriptions and job
analyses.
Enable selecting officials to update or create new
position descriptions.
Create draft vacancy announcements, applicant
questionnaires, crediting plans, job analysis worksheets, interview
questions and benchmark anchors.
Enable users to apply online.
Rate and rank applicants' questionnaires.
Notify online applicants of their eligibility
determinations.
Generate a list of the highest-ranking applicants plus
tied scores for the interview.
Maintain all documentation for content-validity and
compile a report at the conclusion of the selection process.
Question. Have you reached a point that this system is not meeting
your requirements?
Response. The Library is in the process of determining whether this
system can meet its needs in the long-term. While the system has been
able to fill selections, the mechanics of the hiring process have been
troublesome.
Using the new system, the Library has filled 167 positions as of
April 17, 2002. The Library expects to reach its projected hiring
targets this year and surpass last year's hiring numbers--172
selections in FY 2001.
The completion of the Library's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
and Customer Requirements Document (CRD) will enable us to make a
decision as to what system will best serve the Library. The Project
Team's review of these documents will be completed in June, at which
time the Library will decide how to address its hiring process in the
future.
Question. What requirements have not been met?
Response. The Library is in the process of determining whether this
system can meet all the requirements of the Library and until that
review is completed, it is difficult to know all the requirements that
cannot be met. As noted, Avue and the Library have worked very hard to
resolve many of the problems identified to date and will continue this
process.
One area in which Avue has not been able to meet functional
requirements is benchmark anchors. Benchmark anchors are developed by
the subject matter experts during job analysis and are used as
evaluation standards to score candidates' responses to the interview
questions. The Library has developed and continues to use a workaround
for the benchmark anchor issue. Recently, this functionality became
available, at no cost, as part of Avue's scheduled release of its
software in spring 2002. The Library is currently evaluating this new
release to see if it meets the Library's needs in the area of benchmark
anchors.
Question. What were/are your implementation problems?
Response. The Library's initial priority was to install a content-
valid automated hiring system that reduced the time to hire quality
employees and resolved outstanding Cook Class Litigation issues in an
expedited manner. To that end, the Library negotiated Amended Appendix
B which created a new hiring process for the Library.
The constraints imposed by the new process and the pressures on the
Library to get the new process quickly up and running to fill urgent
staffing needs have complicated implementation for the following
reasons:
The new hiring process differed radically from the old
one; and Avue was an entirely new system for the Library. Both the new
process and the new system required new and different roles for all
staff involved in the hiring process. Training on the new process and
the new system proved far more complex and time-consuming than
anticipated.
The new negotiated hiring process changed the way in which
applicants' qualifications are assessed. The new process relies
primarily on a content-valid applicant questionnaire to determine
whether an applicant should be considered. Because Library managers
were unfamiliar with the process of creating an effective applicant
questionnaire, many of the early candidates were not effectively
screened. As a result, early candidate referral pools were much larger
than anticipated and contained candidates who did not possess a
satisfactory level of expertise. This created additional workload and
frustration on the part of the hiring managers.
The manner in which Avue is designed to create and
maintain position descriptions is very different from the way the
Library has traditionally created and maintained position descriptions.
Since Avue uses generic tasks to describe a position, the system lacked
the content to describe many of the Library's unique and specialized
positions. As a result, Library managers using Avue have not obtained
the time-saving benefits that Avue was designed to produce and have
experienced significant difficulty and frustration entering the data
they feel necessary to accurately describe the position being filled.
As addressed by the Inspector General, the Library did not
apply adequate project management tools to the implementation of the
new process and the Avue system. There was no defined methodology for
resolving the problems and addressing the concerns that occur in any
new system or process implementation, which proved to be particularly
acute under the Library's aggressive implementation timeline. Amended
Appendix B, dated January 5, 2001, was to be implemented by March 1,
2001. This timeline not only compressed implementation, but also
increased pressure to abbreviate steps required for effective project
management.
The Human Resources Services staff was tasked with
implementing the new hiring process, managing the implementation of the
Avue system, and learning how to use the new Avue system, all at the
same time. Additionally, from March 1 to May 31, 2001, the HRS staff
encountered an enormous workload in completing the vacancies begun
under the previous hiring process. HRS was not sufficiently staffed to
meet the additional demands of managing the implementation. As the
Inspector General's preliminary findings indicate, standard operating
procedures were not developed nor was there a fully operational Help
Desk to provide assistance for managers and applicants.
Library users and job applicants identified several
functionalities that they wanted either changed or created. Avue was
responsive in making most of those changes during the last several
months of 2001, but the lag slowed implementation.
On October 10, 2001, the Library designated a new Project Manager
and Team to assume responsibility for the Avue contract, to work
exclusively on identifying any remaining issues through a post-
implementation review and to develop a stronger system requirements
document. The Project Team is currently conducting a review to
determine what aspects of the new hiring system are working and which
ones will need to be revised to improve the process.
Question. We understand that you have recently taken steps to
address and correct problems you are having with the system. Could you
explain what you have done or are doing.
Response. The Library has taken various steps to address and
correct system problems. A process audit by the Inspector General has
been requested. A special team has been designated headed by a senior-
level Project Manager, to review and resolve problems associated with
the new automated hiring system and to implement audit recommendations.
On a continual basis, the Library is working with the vendor to
customize the system to meet requirements identified to date, and
tracking and resolving problems as they arise. The Library monitors
hiring results on a weekly basis.
In order to assist in evaluating the automated hiring system, a
draft set of customer requirements and standard operating procedures
that identify the Library's hiring system needs have been developed.
When these documents are finalized, they will be a valuable tool in
evaluating the automated hiring system. Additionally, the Library is
also performing an evaluation of the hiring system (both Appendix B and
the automated system) to determine if it meets the Library's needs or
needs to be modified or replaced to achieve the hiring goals of the
Library.
Question. Provide to the Committee your hiring plan which reflects
meeting your objective of working off the hiring backlog by summer.
Response. As discussed, the Library has taken various steps to
address and correct system problems. Despite the early problems, the
Library has filled 167 jobs during the first seven months of FY 2002,
compared to 172 selections in FY 2001. We are confident, because of the
process now in place, that we have a system that will allow the Library
to fill the jobs it requested in FY 2002 by the end of the year and to
be ready to fill the jobs requested in FY 2003. Our statistics reflect
growing momentum towards achieving these hiring goals.
To facilitate hiring, the office of Human Resources Services (HRS)
has hired additional staff in key areas. Service Units Administrative
Officers (AO) have been certified and trained by the HRS Director to
perform and facilitate the job analysis documentation process, which
has sped up the time required to complete a hire. Controls have been
put in place to ensure that the AO in the service units do not have
access to applicant data. In addition, the work currently being done to
create position descriptions in Avue can be used again, reducing the
time required to create and certify position descriptions in the
future. Finally, the project team's hands on work, coupled with the
service units' growing experience with Avue, continues to improve the
use of the system and the success of filling vacancies in a timely
manner.
Question. What was the total cost of the system?
Response. The Library's subscription service has annual costs of
approximately $415 thousand a year ($405 thousand for the subscription
and $10 thousand for the GSA fee). The start-up costs were
approximately $280 thousand.
Question. What are your projections of the total costs (contractor
and in-house) required to correct the Avue problems?
Response. The total costs to date for correcting Avue problems is
$310 thousand. No additional costs are projected at this time. However,
the financial impact of the Project Team's evaluation of the hiring
system will not be known until after the evaluation is completed and
recommendations are proposed.
Question. What has been your cost to date for correcting the
problems?
Response. As problems have been noted, Avue has worked to resolve
them and has not charged the Library. However, additional costs have
been incurred to meet the functional requirements and to expedite the
hiring process. To date, that additional cost has been approximately
$310 thousand. This funding supported Avue consulting services to
augment the HRS workforce ($231K); General Services Administration
service fee ($6K); development of interview questions and benchmark
anchors ($43K); content analysis ($4K); and job analysis support for
the Congressional Research Service ($26K).
Question. We don't recall receiving any reprogramming request for
the procurement of the system. Was there one made?
Response. The Library did not purchase an automated hiring system;
it purchased a subscription service. The Library had sufficient funds
in its Human Resources Services budget to fund this subscription
service.
Question. Were any other users of the system surveyed prior to your
selection?
Response. Yes. Prior to selection, the Library surveyed the
Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
Department of Justice. The survey methodology consisted of numerous
telephone interviews. In addition, the Library's Office of Human
Resources Services (HRS) also held meetings with human resource and
information technology professionals from these agencies to discuss
their experiences with the Avue classification module. The agencies
contacted by HRS initially reported very positive results from the
system and from Avue's staff and their support.
Question. What if any other systems were evaluated before making
the selection for Avue?
Response. The Library evaluated several systems including:
Avue
Office of Personnel Management's Human Resources Manager
Resumix
Avue was the only vendor that had a system that met the Amended
Appendix B functional requirements and that expressed any willingness
to modify their system to meet the unique needs of the Library within
the time frame imposed upon the Library.
Question. Are there any other systems available that will meet your
requirements in order to get your hiring process on track, or are you
so far into this system that you cannot start over with another system?
Response. The Library is currently evaluating other vendor's
systems, as well as the current system, to determine which will most
effectively meet the Library's needs.
Question. What was the number of vacancies prior to installation of
the Avue?
Response. In FY 2001, the Library had approximately 270
professional/administrative vacancies.
Question. You state that the system was to reduce the average
number of days needed to fill a vacancy. What was the average number of
days needed to fill a vacancy prior to Avue?
Response. Historical data (from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999)
indicates that, on average, 178 calendar days were needed to fill a
vacancy. This number tracks from the day of posting the vacancy
announcement, including the number of days in the posting period,
through the final processing of the selection action.
Question. What was the projected numbers of days after installation
of the Avue system?
Response. Under Avue, the projected number of days to fill a
vacancy after posting is 60. However, based on vacancies filled to
date, the median elapsed time from vacancy announcement to selection
decision is 84 days; average elapsed time from vacancy announcement to
selection decision is 95 days.
Question. How many positions have you filled, by fiscal year, since
implementation of the new system?
Response. From March 2001 (when the Library's new hiring process
was implemented) through September 30, 2001, the Library made 5
selections through the new system. This was in addition to the 167
selections made under the former hiring system, resulting in a total of
172 selections in FY 2001.
During the first seven months of FY 2002, the Library made 167
selections through the new hiring system.
Question. How does this compare with prior years?
Response. The Library has averaged 189 selections per year for the
five-year period from FY 1996 to FY 2000. In FY 2001, 172 selections
were made. The Library has made 167 selections during the first seven
months of this fiscal year, and should exceed the five-year average of
189 selections.
Question. The Committee understands that the system only covers
positions in the professional, administrative, and supervisory
technical fields. What percentage of the Library's work force are in
those categories?
Response. Approximately 61.3 percent of the Library's work force is
in professional, administrative, and supervisory technical positions.
Question. How are positions in the balance of the workforce being
filled?
Response. The Library is filling the remaining positions either
through an automated system processed through the Office of Personnel
Management, or through the traditional hiring process managed by the
Library's Human Resources Office.
Question. What other government agencies use the Avue system?
Response. According to Avue, thirty-three federal departments and
agencies use Avue's classification, staffing and/or workforce
management products. The United States Coast Guard, the Forest Service,
and six agencies of the Department of Justice employ both the
classification and staffing products (e.g. the products used by the
Library to classify positions and fill vacancies).
Question. Have other users experienced the same problems as the
Library?
Response. Some agencies, who initially reported positive results,
have more recently reported unfavorable experiences with Avue and its
solutions. However, the Library's experience with Avue products differs
from other agencies. It should be noted that the version of Avue being
used by other federal agencies differs in many aspects from the
customized system that the Library uses to be in compliance with
Amended Appendix B. Therefore, even if there were no problems
experienced by the other Avue users, their track record would not be a
good indication or prediction for the problems encountered by the
Library.
ARREARAGE REDUCTION
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. One of the major priorities for
fiscal 2003 is to continue to work off the arrearage reduction.
Are you on target with the revised total arrearage goals
approved by Congress?
Dr. Billington. We are, Mr. Chairman. We are 56 percent
ahead on printed materials. The printed arrearages are 25
percent ahead of target for special materials; that is to say,
with the revised time schedule that we presented in the year
2000 when we implemented an Integrated Library System and
realized that the dates were going to have to be extended. But,
even with the implementation of that system, we are
substantially ahead in both areas.
Mr. Taylor. You have requested 14 additional FTE's and
$896,000 in contract support funds to eliminate the arrearage
of in-process materials. Could you maybe define what is in
process materials?
Dr. Billington. Yes. Process materials are materials from
the time they come to the Library's loading dock, until the
time they reach the person, who either catalogs or describes
them. That is a process period and that is a different problem
from the arrearage problem. If you want more details on that
and why that is different, I would call on our Associate
Librarian.
Mr. Taylor. I would also ask the question why can't
contract staff rather than regular staff handle this work load?
Mr. Tabb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This request for dealing
with the in-process backlog has two aspects. One is contract
funds, which we need on a one-year basis in order to reduce the
existing backlogs, to get stuff moved out of the acquisitions
area and into the cataloging areas where it could be worked on.
In addition, we need to have 14 permanent staff so we do not
have in-process backlogs grow in the future. So it is really a
two-part process, one for permanent staff to be sure we don't
have the situation again and the other, the one-time infusion
of contract funds, to work off the current backlog.
NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
(NDIIPP)
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, you anticipate delivering the
national digital information infrastructure and preservation
plan to Congress this year. Do you have any insight as to the
role the Library will play in this national initiative.
Dr. Billington. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are first of all
playing a convening role, a coordinating and convening role in
bringing together an unprecedented array of people from the
private sector and from other great national repositories, and
other interested parties and stakeholders. So that is the main
role we are playing. And of course we are eventually going to
play an important role as one of the central repositories in
this as well as in the determination of the so-called metadata
of the information so we can store, catalog, and be able to
retrieve these digital materials.
This is an immensely complicated and extremely important
assignment that the Congress gave us last year, as you know,
Mr. Chairman. It means on the one hand we have to devise and
figure out with all of the stakeholders--and we have had
meetings--more than 200 people have been participating in this
so far, so we can draw up a master plan that will outline how
we are going to develop partnerships between organizations and
different parts of the economy and of the archival and
educational community that have never collaborated before. Our
main point is to develop the plan which we hope we will be able
to deliver later this year to the Congress. That was the first
stage of the three stages in developing this national program
that we were commissioned to do.
At the same time, we have to strengthen our technological
backbone, which accounts for some of the Library's budget
request. Not that it is not part of this process, but we have
to do it in parallel because it is very clear that we are going
to play an important, by no means the exclusive role. The
challenge at this stage is to develop and define the
partnerships that will then enable us to move to the second
stage.
The 5 million that was appropriated last year is enabling
us to have these meetings. We have had a meeting of these
people, involving some of the major figures of the industry, as
well as others in a meeting in May, and then another one of
three two-day meetings with different groups in November. We
are inventorying all of the meeting discussions, and we will
develop a plan. Then that will release $20 million. This is
already appropriated money, as you are aware. That will release
the $20 million for the partnerships.
So those possible partnerships will be largely identified
in this convening process that we are doing in stage one. So we
play a very simple yet critical role. It is going to be a
distributed national program. There will be a large number of
participants and in a way they will have some flexibility to
define their own roles.
But what we have met with, Mr. Chairman, is extraordinary
enthusiasm. We have gotten participation, as I say, by all
kinds of people. We have not only the 200 people who have
actually participated in dialogues, but we have a 26-member
advisory board with extraordinary participation and enthusiasm
in helping to define how we can have a national program that
will involve all the different elements by the way of the
public sector.
There were four key participants specified in the
legislation, as you may recall. We were supposed to convene it
in the Library of Congress with the head of the National
Archives, the Scientific Advisor of the White House and the
Secretary of Commerce. So that is a core group, but we are
involving a whole host of other Federal institutions as well as
participants in the private sector. So it is a major
undertaking, and I think a very promising one. It is being met
with a very warm and enthusiastic and participatory response in
the private sector.
RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT CENTER/PROGRAM
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Billington, the Russian Leadership
Development Center has requested $10 million for the operation
of the center during fiscal year 2003. You are Chairman of the
board of trustees for the center, and I can certainly testify
to a lot of the work that has been done. But could you comment
on the success of the program and how you have measured the
success of the program?
Dr. Billington. I think it has been extraordinarily
successful. Qualitatively it has received enormous attention
particularly in the local press. We have had close to 800
different American communities participate in it. Average age
of people is 38, more than a third of them women, something
totally new from this very dynamic young leadership group whose
whole political formation has been in the post-Soviet period.
It is probably one of the most heavily evaluated exchange
program, I think, certainly in the history of exchanges. The
participants have questionnaires that they fill out. They have
had 10 alumni meetings all over Russia. The local community
press in this country has given an enormous amount of attention
and publicity, and now that we have a separate entity in the
Legislative Branch that is in charge of this, we are going to
be doing an even more sophisticated evaluation, probably on-
line because we have a Web site, of all of the participants all
over Russia. We already benefitted from the evaluation of the
first year by moving in the second year toward much more
focused groups and this year with heavy focus on the rule of
law, which everybody sees as the essential element in
developing a dynamic economy as well as an accountable
political system.
So this is a process that is continuously evaluated, and
now that there is such an excellent board that the Congress has
created for this independent entity still housed
administratively within the Library of Congress, I think we
have a very good chance of keeping it and improving that
program.
Mr. Taylor. I have a question that I submit to you to be
answered for the record.
[The question and response follows:]
Russian Leadership Development Center
Question. Currently the program provides for emerging political
leaders of the Russian Federation to visit the United States to gain
first hand knowledge of the principles of democracy and market economy.
What are your views of allowing emerging political leaders in federal
and state government within the United States visit Russia to study
political, business, and non governmental organizations of the Russian
Federation?
Response. The Open World Program has over 4,000 alumni in Russia
from all 89 regions. The program is seeking private funding--with some
success to date--to support modest programs that would allow alumni in
the various regions to form associations or informal networks among
themselves and with other Russians who have visited the U.S. under the
aegis of other American programs. The program also publishes and
distributes an alumni bulletin in Russian and English to encourage
communication within Russia and with U.S. hosts. There is also a dual
language website.
A small number of our U.S. hosts have visited Russia (without
financial support) and met with the delegations they have hosted. The
most successful of these efforts is focused around professional
development in the field of work that was the focus of the original
Open World Program in the U.S. For example, two of our American host
judges who have participated in the U.S. Rule of Law Program recently
traveled to Moscow and St. Petersburg and conducted seminars on such
topics as criminal proceedings and bankruptcy. Each of the resulting
meetings was the largest gathering of Open World alumni in each city;
alumni also brought professional colleagues (judges, attorneys) to
participate. The session in St. Petersburg was also widely covered in
the local media.
Participants for such a program would have to be carefully chosen
in order to utilize such travel for meaningful alumni professional
development. Funding for such a pilot is not in the budget available
for the Open World Program as approved by the Center's board of
trustees in March 2002.
DIGITIZED ITEMS
Mr. Taylor. I certainly want to commend you on your
digitization work at the Library. I understand you have
digitized just under 8 million items. In addition, you have
worked with foreign governments in digitizing such things as
maps, books and other materials, I certainly commend you on
that. I think if this is integrated into our educational
system, it will be a major compliment to the Library of
Congress and we will be fortunate that you are heading that
effort.
I have a number of questions I will submit for the record,
but I yield now to Mr. Moran for his questions.
[Following are the questions to be answered for the record
from Chairman Taylor:]
Integrated Library System (ILS)
Question. The Committee has provided $15.5 million over the past 5
years for the Integrated Library System (ILS). This year you have
requested another $911 thousand, which brings the total to $16.4
million, of No-Year funds for the continued acquisition and partial
support of the ILS. What was the total projected cost of the ILS?
Response. In FY 1998, the Library requested $15.8 million, the
first installment of a seven-year implementation budget (FY98-04). The
Library's request was based on estimates developed in 1996, prior to
the selection of an ILS vendor. Upon contract award to Endeavor
Information Systems Inc., as planned, in FY 2000 the Library presented
a revised total projected cost estimate totaling $17.7 million. Of this
amount $15.5 million has been provided through FY 2002 and $911
thousand is requested in FY 2003.
Question. Are you currently over or under budget?
Response. The Library costs are consistent and in line with the FY
2000 revised total projected cost of $17.7 million.
Question. Why are these funds required on a No-Year basis?
Response. The Library needs the flexibility of No-Year funds so
that we can obligate the funds at the point when (1) the Library and
vendor have determined the most effective approach to satisfy the ever-
increasing demand for public catalog access; and (2) the Library is
ready to start entering detailed serials holdings statements into the
ILS as part of the inventory project approved Congress in FY 2002.
Question. What is the current unobligated balance of prior year
funds appropriated for this system?
Response. Of the ILS funds appropriated between FY 1998 and FY
2001, $1.4 million remains available for obligation. The $1.4 million
will be obligated for additional hardware, software development,
maintenance and contracting to ensure that we will be able to meet the
public demand for the Library's Catalog.
Question. What is the total amount needed to complete the project?
Response. A total of $2.2 million is needed to complete the project
of which $911 thousand is requested in FY 2003. The balance will be in
the Library's FY 2004 budget request.
Question. The Committee is pleased to hear that the funding we
provided for the Integrated Library System (ILS) has provided
significant operational improvements such as improved book labeling,
gathering individual production statics, and streamlined workflows.
What have the individual production statistics shown you?
Response. Productivity data has indicated many areas of significant
improvements in Library operations as well as areas that need more
attention. Binding productivity has surpassed pre-ILS levels for
several quarters. Serials cataloging productivity has improved steadily
over the past few quarters and is now almost at pre-ILS levels.
Monograph cataloging productivity in the Cataloging Directorate is at
all-time highs, having increased by 8.67 percent according to one
measure. (Total cataloging production, however, has not returned to
pre-baseline levels, as the Cataloging directorate has nearly 200 fewer
arrearage reduction positions filled than were filled at the beginning
of the arrearage reduction project.) Because the ILS check-in system
captures much more useful information than could be recorded in the
manual system, productivity for serial check-in is substantially lower
than the baseline, indicating a need to add serial technicians to
manage the increasing serials workload while also capitalizing on the
capabilities of the ILS.
Question. Have you discovered areas of weakness and strength in
your operations?
Response. Yes:
The constantly-increasing popularity of the Library of
Congress Online Catalog on the World Wide Web has created a strain on
the system. The Library's customers want round-the-clock, unfettered
Web access to our catalog. The Library is gratified by this
overwhelmingly favorable customer response to the access, made possible
by the ILS. We are actively working with Endeavor Information Systems,
Inc., our ILS vendor, to increase the current maximum number of
simultaneous log-ons from outside the Library and Congressional offices
via the Web.
The ILS implementation effort proved that, by working
together, Library staff could accomplish a large-scale transition from
fragmented legacy systems to an integrated system on time and within
budget--including obtaining needed hardware, making the transition from
the OS/2 platform to the Windows platform, training all staff who use
the ILS, keeping the larger community outside the Library informed of
our progress, and using the system for library acquisitions,
cataloging, circulation, online public access, and serials check-in
functions.
The success of the Library units in working together, and
the adaptability and tenacity of our dedicated staff, position the
Library well to mount the integrated, agency-wide effort that is needed
to continue improving both the ILS and our business processes and to
meet the challenges of the digital future.
Data from the ILS validate the efficiency of the Library's
whole-resource approach to cataloging, in which the whole book, sound
recording, or other resource is cataloged by a single individual or
within a single team. Cataloging productivity has reached all-time
highs.
Serials management was known from the beginning to be one
of the ILS functions that would require more development by the vendor.
Because ILS check-in is more complex and accomplishes more tasks,
online check-in of serial issues in the ILS is slower than manual
check-in. However, the ILS also provides significant benefits: enhanced
security for publications through better inventory control, enhanced
searching to determine whether a title is retained by LC, worldwide
dissemination of holdings data, instant data about the acquisitions
status of a title, and automatic generation of labels.
The ILS implementation, even while generating useful
statistics, such as individual and team cataloging statistics and
reports on invoice payments, has highlighted the need for more
consistent statistical reporting across Library units.
Question. Have you been able to make adjustments in your operations
and/or workflows that have increased productivity?
Reponse. Yes. For example:
The ILS permits distributed check-in of serials. The
Acquisitions Directorate is now in the process of transferring serials
check-in responsibility to the divisions that will permanently house
the material as soon as it arrives at the Library. A pilot project in
FY 2001 demonstrated, that decentralizing check-in improved
productivity and decreased throughput time. Decentralization also
allows for better tracking and control of serial issues from the time
they come into the Library.
The upgrade of the ILS software, in February 2002, made it
possible to easily resolve problems in distributing records to the
bibliographic utilities and other Cataloging Distribution Service
customers.
The Special Materials Cataloging Division now uses the ILS
bulk import feature to add 30,000 to 40,000 initial bibliographic
control records a year from other systems to the ILS with little or no
keying by staff--compared to about 3,000 prior to the ILS
implementation.
The Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound
Division is now beginning to import Copyright Office data for moving
images (film, etc.) to the ILS using bulk import.
The Library can now use technicians rather than
professional librarians to search the bibliographic utilities and
correctly download cataloging copy from other libraries.
The ILS holding and item record features have enabled the
book catalogers to eliminate backlogs of second copies that need to be
added to the Library's book collections.
The ILS has enabled records to be created in the
Electronic Preassigned Card Number program for self-published materials
with far less human intervention than was previously required. This
functionality was so successful that the Library discontinued the
paper-based Preassigned Card Number program in January 2002.
The ILS permits proposals for new and changed subject
headings to be submitted directly online, saving time and distribution
of multiple paper copies.
Prior to the ILS, Cataloging Directorate staff had to
release complete records to the main database manually, one record at a
time. The ILS has eliminated this final step for most records, yielding
a savings of two FTE Cataloging Directorate technician positions, as
already reported to Congress.
Projected savings of $500,000, from eliminating duplicate
serial subscriptions, was reflected in the Library's FY 2003 budget.
See page 56 of the Library's FY 2003 Budget Justification.
Question. Give us some examples of operational changes resulting
from the data provided by the ILS.
Response. In addition to those changes described, the Library has
either begun or is about to begin implementing the following changes
based on ILS functionality:
The Library is just beginning to use electronic data
interchange (EDI) e-commerce technology, based on ILS functionality, to
pay serials invoices. Preliminary work indicates that EDI will
significantly increase productivity in this area.
The improved efficiency of distributed check-in will
enable the Library to use the ILS to develop a regular serials claiming
program. The Acquisitions Directorate has begun work on a project to
begin serials claiming in October, 2002.
Operational changes using the ILS have greatly improved collections
security:
By far the largest operational change to date is the use
of the ILS to provide inventory control--a control that the Library
essentially did not have prior to ILS implementation.
Prior to implementation of the ILS, the Library did not
prepare preliminary cataloging records for the 55,000+ sound recordings
received through the Copyright Office each year. The ILS enables
creation of initial bibliographic control records on receipt for
currently received commercial sound recordings from Copyright. This
capability improves both retrievability and the physical security of
in-process sound recordings.
The ILS permits the Cataloging Directorate to label
hardcover books as part of the cataloging process, reducing the need
for moving materials to the Binding and Collections Care Division and
improving the security of the items.
Holdings and item records are created in the acquisitions
units and the Copyright Office, bringing additions to the collections
under inventory control as soon after receipt as possible.
The ILS has provided improvements to cataloging efficiency and
quality:
The ILS automatically checks for typographical and
structural errors in data.
The ILS facilitates the inexpensive inclusion of full tables of
contents in selected Electronic Cataloging in Publication records,
which are now about one third of our total Cataloging in Publication
production. Access to Tables of contents is one of the enhancements to
catalog records most demanded by our users.
The bulk import feature of the ILS permitted the Library
to convert from the outmoded Wade-Giles system for romanizing Chinese
characters in its catalog to the pinyin system, which is now the
worldwide standard, and to lead the conversion to pinyin throughout the
North American library community. Approximately 200,000 bibliographic
records and 158,000 authority records were converted to pinyin and made
available to the nation's librarians in cooperation with the
bibliographic utilities.
The Preservation Directorate is also using the ILS to improve its
programs:
Creation of initial bibliographic control and item records
for materials sent out for commercial preservation microfilming gives
greater control over what has left the Library and more precise
estimates of return dates from contractor.
The ILS enables staff to report holdings of Master
negatives and service negatives, reducing potential damage to the
costly Master negatives.
The ILS enables staff to note on-line the condition of any
new receipts that were damaged by U.S. Postal Service irradiation since
October 2001.
The Library has benefitted greatly from the ILS circulation
capability:
Patrons can use free text fields to fully describe the
materials they need.
Patrons themselves can check the status of their requests
in the LC Online Catalog.