[Senate Hearing 107-143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-143
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2647/S. 1172
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Congressional Budget Office
General Accounting Office
Government Printing Office
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Economic Committee
Library of Congress
Office of Compliance
U.S. Capitol Police Board
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress/senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-861 WASHINGTON : 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \1\
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Terry Sauvain (Minority)
\1\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--January 25 to June 6,
2001.
Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
again on June 6, 2001.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \2\
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Terry Sauvain (Minority)
\2\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--June 6, 2001 to July
10, 2001.
Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
again on June 6, 2001.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, May 2, 2001
Page
Joint Economic Committee......................................... 1
Library of Congress.............................................. 5
Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 37
Library of Congress--Continued................................... 55
Thursday, May 10, 2001
Government Printing Office....................................... 69
General Accounting Office........................................ 89
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 113
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
U.S. Senate: Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper....... 125
U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................ 153
Office of Compliance............................................. 171
Tuesday, June 26, 2001
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 179
Material submitted subsequent to the hearings.................... 253
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett and Durbin.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
We have a series of panels this morning on appropriations
for the coming year for a variety of agencies that come under
our jurisdiction. The first one is the Joint Economic
Committee. We are happy to welcome Congressman Saxton here, who
is the chairman of that committee. I have a particular interest
in that committee because I am the vice chairman. So, naturally
we want to see that it is well funded.
Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to have you here. We note
that your request is the same as last year's with the cost-of-
living increase being the only change from last year to this
year. Ninety-five percent of the request is pay for personnel.
It is a 3.3 percent increase over fiscal year 2000. We welcome
you as chairman of the committee and welcome you here.
I have no pearls of wisdom to share with you in advance,
but Senator Durbin, as the ranking member, we are always glad
to hear from you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Bennett, if you are deferring
pearls of wisdom, I will too.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be back this year as a member of
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and I am especially proud to serve
as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for the 107th Congress.
We have made major investments in recent years in the agencies
under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Some of those investments,
unfortunately, have been demanded by the times in which we live (such
as the need for security enhancements for the Capitol complex), and
other investments have been driven by our desire to appropriately
preserve and maintain for future generations the treasures and
artifacts of our Nation's history.
As legislators, we make decisions every day that impact the lives
of our constituents. We make choices which set the course of this great
Nation. Many of our decisions are based on information statistical
data, budget analyses, research and reports provided to us by the
support agencies of the Legislative Branch, such as the Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, General Accounting Office,
Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Joint
Economic Committee, and others. We rely on the accuracy of their data
to guide us in our decision-making. And, while we ask for efficiency in
their operations, we also recognize that these support agencies need to
be provided sufficient funds to do their job well. I trust that we will
be able to do that this year.
Before we begin our first hearing this morning, I take this
opportunity to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the diligence and
foresight you have exhibited as Chairman of the Subcommittee, and I
very much look forward to working with you this year.
Senator Bennett. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here, and we look forward
to hearing your comments.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE RESEARCH
Mr. Saxton. Let me just say at the outset I have a
statement which I will just submit for the record. It is
probably 4 or 5 minutes long, so we will just dispense with
that.
Let me just say that the Joint Economic Committee, as both
you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Durbin know, is an organization
which looks at what is happening in the economy and relates it
to various Federal policies that may be affecting the economy
in one way or another.
Recently we have spent a great deal of time looking at
Federal Reserve policy, for obvious reasons. We have, in a
sense, championed Fed policy over the last decade or so,
recognizing that they did a great job in squeezing inflation
out of the economy. When the Fed started to tighten a year or
so ago, we looked at it again, but this time in a slightly more
skeptical way and I communicated this to the Fed. We are glad
to see that they have again turned the corner and are again
pursuing policies of economic growth.
As an example of the work that we do, I brought this Joint
Economic Committee report entitled, Current Economic Conditions
and Outlook, with me, which I will leave with you for the
record, or for whatever purpose you think is important. It is a
look at the current economic conditions, with many charts and
graphs, which I like because it makes all of this economic talk
much easier to understand. I will just share that with you and
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Also, let me ask for consent to place Senator Jack Reed's
statement in the record. He is the ranking member of the Joint
Economic Committee.
Senator Bennett. Without objection, it shall be placed in
the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Congressman Jim Saxton
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
present my strong support for the fiscal year 2002 budget request of
the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). During the 107th Congress, the
Committee will have two productive years of hearings, studies, and
reports on the important economic challenges facing our country.
Naturally, I am pleased that the Committee's research has been well
received, and our website has been designated as one of the three top
committee websites on Capitol Hill by the nonpartisan Congressional
Management Foundation.
As we know, the Congress must have the capability to provide
dependable information of high quality to its Members before important
economic policy decisions are made. The Executive Branch has a number
of agencies with sizable resources devoted to economic and statistical
analysis, and Congress needs to have access to as much comparable but
independent analysis as possible through entities such as the JEC. The
budget of the JEC is insignificant compared to the offices for economic
and statistics scattered throughout each agency of the Executive
Branch. In short, as a co-equal branch of government, Congress needs
the capability for independent economic analysis, even if it is on a
much smaller scale than that of the Executive Branch.
This need for economic analysis is especially obvious during
periods of rapid economic change, as at the present time. The Committee
is closely monitoring the various aspects of the economic slowdown,
issuing several papers charting its course since the end of last year.
The Committee will continue to work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) in reviewing new employment and unemployment data through
analysis and periodic hearings. The Committee will also continue to
monitor the increasingly fragile international economic situation and
make constructive contributions to policy in this area as well.
The Committee has also focused on monetary policy over the last 18
months, and I have suggested that there was a danger of over-tightening
monetary policy that could result in an economic slowdown.
Unfortunately, this economic slowdown, influenced by the stock market
meltdown and energy problem, has become a serious problem.
Another recent area of research has been focused on the area of
personal saving and investment. The Committee's research has found that
the current tax treatment of capital gains distributions to mutual fund
investors unnecessarily triggers sizable tax payments even when the
shares are not sold. This is identified as a major impediment to saving
and investment by middle class households.
Future research will focus on a variety of issues related to
macroeconomic performance, taxation, debt management, and a variety of
other issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today and would be glad to try to answer any questions that you might
have.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Jack Reed
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am submitting this
statement to indicate my strong support for the fiscal year 2002 budget
request of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). The Committee fulfills
an important function for the Congress by providing dependable and high
quality information on the state of the economy and on the economic
effects of alternative policy proposals. This information must be based
on sound analysis that is both timely and keyed to the needs of the
Congress. While the size and budget of the Committee are small compared
to those of the many Executive Branch agencies that do such analyses
for the Administration, the JEC provides Congress with an independent
look at the economic issues that affect our nation and shape our
policies. Through the Committee, members of Congress have access to
economic analyses that are immediately relevant to the issues they must
address.
The role of the Committee is especially important when economic
conditions are uncertain and subject to possible changes, as they are
now. In this environment, fast turn-around analyses of the economic
effects of specific policy proposals must be available to members if
they are to make the best possible policy decisions. In addition, on-
going monitoring of the state of the economy is needed to allow members
to gauge the need for new policy initiatives. Both the Republican and
Democratic staffs of the Committee have plans to produce studies
addressing these needs during the coming session of Congress. The
Democratic staff of the Committee is also producing a Weekly Economic
Digest, a brief summary of current economic data that highlights
changing conditions as they occur. The Democratic members of the
Committee will also continue to work with the Chairman and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) in monitoring new employment and unemployment
data through analysis and periodic hearings.
I would like to commend my colleague, Chairman Jim Saxton, for his
strong leadership and defense of the Committee over the past several
years. The need for the information and the analysis the Committee can
provide is even greater now than it has been in the past. I would like
to join with Chairman Saxton is urging you to approve this budget
request.
Senator Bennett. I must share with you, Mr. Chairman, a
comment that I received from Alan Greenspan when I succeeded
Connie Mack as the senior Republican on the Senate side on this
committee. We talked about some of the things that we could do
in the committee. One of the nice things about Chairman
Greenspan is that he represents significant institutional
memory in this town, and he said when Hubert Humphrey was the
Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, he made it look as if
every other committee on Capitol Hill was irrelevant.
I do not think necessarily this is a goal to which you
aspire, but I share that with you to encourage you to be far-
reaching in the things you look at, and certainly to the degree
you will allow me as vice chairman to act, I intend to look at
a wide variety of things.
I have talked with Jack Reed, and we intend our first
hearing on the Senate side will be on energy policy because
certainly energy is emerging as a major economic influence in
the years ahead.
But we appreciate what you are doing here. It maybe frees
us up on the Senate side to be a little more free-ranging. We
do hope that we can have the high tech summit before the JEC
again this year, as we have done in the past 2 years, and we
appreciate your support.
I have nothing further. Senator Durbin, do you have any
comments?
Senator Durbin. No, Senator Bennett. Just by historic
perspective, when I first started as an intern in the United
States Senate in 1966, I worked for Senator Paul Douglas who
was a proud member of the Joint Economic Committee. I have
always felt that this committee is a great forum for
congressional discussion of economic issues and analyses. I
want to make sure it is well funded and we meet their
resources. Good work. Happy to work with you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. I had not realized you worked for Senator
Douglas. Now I know the source of your somewhat interesting
economic positions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. We appreciate that.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
Senator Bennett. We now go to the Joint Committee on
Taxation. Congressman Thomas, who is the chairman of that
committee, has been detained. So, we will go directly then to
the Library of Congress. We welcome Dr. James Billington.
Dr. Billington, we welcome you. We also welcome Mr.
Mulhollan, but we are going to get to you separately because
you have your own jurisdiction under Dr. Billington. Dr.
Billington, it is a delight to see you. We are always glad to
have you here and look forward to hearing whatever it is you
have to tell us.
Dr. Billington. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General
Scott, the Deputy Librarian, and I appreciate----
Senator Bennett. Yes, we should note for the record that
the Deputy Librarian, General Scott, is accompanying Dr.
Billington. I apologize.
Dr. Billington. We appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee. I want to thank you and the committee
sincerely for your continued support for the library.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
I would just note briefly at the beginning that the library
is reducing by $2.7 million the budget request we originally
submitted for the Copyright Office, and that is explained in my
longer statement.
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF LIBRARY'S BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, the four major elements of the Library's
fiscal year 2002 budget request are, first of all, the
mandatory pay and price level increase of $20 million. The
Library's budget overwhelmingly funds people and technology,
categories where costs increase each year because of mandated
pay raises and inflationary price level increases. So, the $20
million request is just to fund these inescapable mandatory
price increases.
The second element in the request is the digital futures
increase of $18.8 million for fiscal year 2002, which is needed
to support, first of all, the Congressional Research Service's
delivery of policy analysis and research, which Mr. Mulhollan
can explain in more detail; also the National Digital Library's
continuing infrastructure requirements; and the Library's
computer security infrastructure.
Technology is, as you well know, going to define how we do
business with our principal client, the Congress, for the
foreseeable future, and the Library's digital futures budget
request of $18.8 million is independent of, but is a
prerequisite for the responsible use of the special
appropriation last year of $99.8 million to lead a national
strategic planning effort and help fund the cooperative efforts
with others for long-term preservation of digital materials.
But in the meantime, the Library's own digital infrastructure
has to be adequately sustained.
The third element in the budget is the needed increase of
$11.8 million for collections access, preservation, and
security. The Library's massive, multi-formatted collections
remain the heart of the institution. All of these traditional
artifactual collections continue to grow. We get 22,000 items a
day, of which we keep between 8,000 and 10,000. This continues
to grow, sometimes at accelerating rates throughout the world,
and the Library must invest more in securing and preserving
these primary assets.
The increased fiscal year 2002 budget request will enable
the Library to deacidify and thus prolong the life of books
printed on deteriorating paper, test options for developing a
paper-strengthening capability, clean and repair materials
destined for remote storage, and begin realigning the multi-
million volume general collections when we have the opening of
the first Fort Meade repository later this year so that all
books are housed in optimal locations and in proper conditions.
Finally, it enables, in particular, the American Folklife
Center to reduce its very large arrearage while also launching
a new project, unanimously approved in the last session of
Congress, to develop a Veterans Oral History Program so that
future generations will have access to the stories of Americans
who served their country in our 20th century wars.
The final element in our request reflects program
reductions of $121.4 million. Several activities that were
approved for fiscal year 2001 do not require additional funding
in fiscal year 2002. The biggest by far, of course, is the
special one-time appropriation of $99.8 million for the
national digital information infrastructure and preservation
program. The fiscal year 2001 budget provided multi-year
funding for this important new congressional initiative which
recognizes that the Library has to develop a national plan in
order to be able to integrate new Internet digital materials
into its historic mandate to preserve and provide access to the
record of human experience.
Because of the very large program reductions, the Library's
budget request totals a decrease of $68.4 million or 13.4
percent below the fiscal year 2001 total appropriation.
ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF DIGITAL MATERIALS
At the start of this third millennium and the Library's
third century, Mr. Chairman, the Library has to acquire,
preserve, and ensure rights-protected access to a tidal wave of
material that is often available only in digital form. This is
playing an increasingly important role in the whole
intellectual, commercial, and creative life of the United
States. The amount of so-called ``born digital'' works that
have already been lost is unknown, but it is very substantial.
The average life of a Web page is only about 75 days. Given the
immeasurable size, the uneven quality, and the short life span
of much of the Web's content, the Library faces an
extraordinary and quite unprecedented challenge in sorting and
archiving what ought to be preserved. We must, as a result,
develop a whole new range and type of partnerships and
cooperative relationships if we are to continue fulfilling our
basic library function in the new digital universe.
In conformity with the Congress' recent special
appropriation, the Library is in the process of formulating a
national strategy for the life cycle management of digital
materials and integrating that management into the national
collection. We had our first meeting with our national
technological advisory board yesterday. There is a great deal
of enthusiasm and buy-in in the beginning of this process of
developing a genuine national plan and beginning to implement
it.
The Library must also make sure that it has a digital
infrastructure that can be scaled up in the future to support
and sustain this kind of a cooperative national digital
information strategy. Our digital futures increase is largely
in three areas: first, developing a digital repository
architecture that will preserve current and future digital
assets acquired for the permanent universal collection in the
new media; secondly, providing the basic technology
infrastructure and support components that must be in place to
enable the Library's program managers and specialists to retain
and deliver a digital library using software, hardware,
telecommunications, and technical supporting staff; and
finally, providing access services that will sustain the
Library's digital outreach to the Nation, which reached last
year about 1 billion electronic transactions. So, this goes up
geometrically and, we think, healthily, but it puts a
tremendous strain on the Library's basic infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, librarians will be needed more than ever
before as objective knowledge navigators amid the sea of
unorganized, often highly undependable, and sometimes quite
objectionable information that is increasingly inundating the
Internet.
Libraries will be needed to assure free public access for
those who would otherwise be on the losing side of the digital
divide, which is a reality, and also for those who might
otherwise never learn to work both with the new information and
with the old books. There is something very healthy about
bringing the two together rather than keeping them separate.
Libraries, like America itself, add the new without subtracting
the old. That is a unique feature.
Properly used, as we add the new electronic material into
the old artifactual libraries, the Internet will help both
scientifically to solve common problems that are shared by
widely dispersed groups in fields like health, the environment,
and so forth, and, at the same time, humanistically educate and
inform our own people by sharing on-line materials that
stimulate learning and communicate the distinctive cultural
identities and histories and stories of different peoples.
On behalf of the Library and its staff, I want to once
again thank the Congress and the American people for the
outpouring of support for the Library during its bicentennial
celebration last year, in which we increasingly tried to focus
on the future and on doing things that would lead us into the
future.
The library is entering a critical period when it must, in
effect, superimpose a select library of digital materials on
top of its undiminished needs to sustain a traditional
artifactual library. Many parts of the world are just entering
the print age, even as we all move into the Internet age, and
those vital records have got to be sustained.
We are not seeking appropriations for any new function. We
are merely trying to sustain our historic core function of
acquiring, preserving, and making accessible knowledge and
information, which in various forms are now being increasingly
generated and communicated in this radically new and rather
impermanent medium.
With congressional support of our fiscal year 2002 request,
the Library will be able to continue its dedicated service to
the work of Congress and to the creative life of the American
people.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that each of you have a chance to
look at the packet of materials before you and also to log on
and see what services are available to your staff and to
millions of other Americans each and every day from the
Congress' library. I had many occasions to say during the
bicentennial year in a variety of formats that the Congress of
the United States has been the greatest single patron of the
Library in the history of the world. We thank you for that. We
are conscious of our responsibilities to bring it into the
digital age. We thank all of you and we will be glad to respond
to any questions that you might have, Mr. Chairman.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
The Library celebrated its bicentennial in 2000 by focusing on the
future. The Internet has added a new dimension to the Library's
historic mission of sustaining and preserving a universal collection
and making its resources useful to the Congress and the American
people. The new digital communications offer this unique institution
extraordinary opportunities to achieve new levels of service to the
Congress for its legislative work and to citizens in search of
knowledge in every Congressional District. The Library created for its
bicentennial an on-line library of more than five million historically
significant digital items that are now available free of charge on the
Internet to people wherever they live. More than 120 million Americans
now have personal Internet access, and 95 percent of K-12 schools and
most public libraries can provide access for those who cannot afford
personal computers. The Library of Congress received almost one billion
electronic transactions in 2000.
We deeply appreciate the Congress's approval of the Library's
fiscal 2001 budget, including permanent status for the 84 positions
that made possible our award-winning National Digital Library (NDL)
Program. This action permits us to retain for our broadening digital
future the innovative talents, technical expertise, and Library
experience of those who will be able to help us face the massive
challenges that lie ahead: incorporating digital material into our
universal holdings, ensuring their long-term preservation, and making
them accessible to the Congress and the nation. The Library, at the
same time, must sustain its traditional artifactual collections (the
amount of print materials also continues to grow worldwide) and move
its services to the Congress and to the Copyright community rapidly
into the electronic age. All this and more we must do with a staff
considerably smaller than a decade ago.
Our NDL efforts have won many awards and widespread praise. Joyce
Valenza, a librarian at Springfield Township High School in
Pennsylvania, states: ``I use the American Memory Web site to bring an
immediacy to history that kids can't get from textbooks.'' Richard
Geib, a history and English teacher at Milkin Community High School in
Los Angeles, writes: ``I am a teacher who has found your site
enormously helpful in presenting/building digital lectures for my
students. I cannot remember the last time I derived such direct benefit
from my tax dollars!''
Building on such success, the Library launched on April 24, 2000,
its two-hundredth birthday, a new Web site (AmericasLibrary.gov)
designed to introduce children and families to American history. This
site--which is recording more than eight million electronic hits each
month--is being promoted by the first pro bono campaign for a library
program ever conducted by the Advertising Council. With virtually all
K-12 public schools now connected to the Internet, the Library is
positioned to make a major contribution toward the nation's educational
development and future productivity.
The Library's main priority in the digital arena is to help the
Congress and generations of researchers quickly gain access to relevant
and verifiable information in digital formats, while ensuring that the
rights of content creators and producers are respected. The exponential
growth of the Internet is fostering an explosion of material that
increasingly is produced only in digital formats. These so-called
``born digital'' works are growing so rapidly that an international
consulting firm, Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting), predicts
that the sale of e-books will reach $2.3 billion by 2005. The Library
is facing the massive challenge of applying its traditional strengths
of acquiring, preserving, describing, and making accessible knowledge
and information to the rapidly growing but often ephemeral mass of
material produced only in digital form. The Library must apply its
unique experiences and resources for organizing knowledge and
information with in-depth subject and language expertise to the
unstructured and unfiltered world of the Internet if it is to continue
informing and serving the Congress and the nation.
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, the Congress
provided to the Library a special $99.8 million appropriation to
develop a cooperative nationwide collection and preservation strategy
for digital materials. In collaboration with other Federal and
nonfederal entities, the Library is mandated to develop a phased
implementation plan that will lead to a national strategy for a network
of libraries and other organizations to share responsibilities for
collecting, maintaining, and providing permanent access to digital
materials. The plan will also develop, in concert with the Copyright
Office, strategies for defining national policies and protocols for the
long-term preservation of digital materials and for the technological
infrastructure that will be required for the Library to play its key
role in the collaborative national network.
This new congressional direction recognizes that the Library must
integrate the new Internet/digital medium into its historic mandate to
preserve and provide access to the record of human experience. Of the
total appropriated, $75 million is to be made available as this amount
is matched by nonfederal donations, including in-kind contributions,
through March 31, 2003.
Two years ago, I commissioned an independent study by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), a private, nonprofit science and technology
research organization, to provide an outside assessment of our
technology efforts and general advice on an information technology path
for the Library in the next decade. Experts on the Computer and Science
Telecommunication Board of the National Research Council of NAS
produced in July 2000 their report, LC 21: A Digital Strategy for the
Library of Congress. It suggested that the Library ``needs to be more
proactive in bringing together stakeholders as partners in digital
publishing and digital library research and development.'' The report
called for the Library to assume leadership in many areas, such as
supporting and promoting research and development in digital
preservation, coordinating metadata standards for digital materials to
extend and transform cooperative cataloging in the Internet context,
and helping the U.S. library community work with electronic publishers
and others to resolve the legal and technical questions that relate to
digital works.
The Library's fiscal 2002 budget recognizes the Library's special,
new congressional mandate to develop a national digital infrastructure
and preservation plan in collaboration with other Federal and
nonfederal entities for the Congress and the nation. At the same time,
the Library must continue to construct the digital-repository
architecture and basic technology infrastructure that will enable us to
preserve current and future digital assets--building on many of the NAS
recommendations.
The fiscal 2002 budget request contains four major elements. Before
I explain those elements, I would like to notify the committee that the
Library is withdrawing the Copyright Office's request of $2,688,109 and
13 FTEs to accelerate the development of the Copyright Office's
electronic registration, recordation, and deposit system (CORDS). Since
the date the Library's fiscal 2002 budget was submitted to the
Congress, the Copyright Office has received new information from its
reengineering project team that points to the need to do further
analysis of the Office's total systems requirements before any further
acceleration of the CORDS systems is undertaken. We are also reducing
the Copyright Office's use of receipts by the $1.1 million that was
budgeted to fund a portion of the CORDS project. I ask that the
Congress maintain the fees accumulated in the Copyright Office's no-
year receipt account (including the $1.1 million) for the inescapable
and significant automation costs that we know will be necessary to fund
the Office's electronic transformation in the future. The Register of
Copyrights, Ms. Marybeth Peters, will elaborate further on this change
and the critical need to maintain the no-year receipt account in her
statement. The numbers contained in this statement have been adjusted
to reflect the decision to withdraw the Copyright Office's request.
Program Decreases ($121.4 million).--The Library's fiscal 2001
budget provides no-year funds for several activities that do not
require additional funding in fiscal 2002 and may or may not continue
beyond fiscal 2001. Specifically, the National Digital Information
Infrastructure and Preservation Program ($99.8 million), the
establishment of a Center for Russian Leadership Development ($10
million), three digital access projects ($10.6 million), and a phased
reduction in the Integrated Library System ($1 million) are program
decreases in fiscal 2002.
Mandatory Pay and Price-level Increases ($20 million).--The
Library's budget funds primarily people and technology--categories
where costs increase each year because of mandated pay and inflationary
price-level increases. Unless these increases are funded, existing
programs must be cut. Funding our fiscal 2002 budget request for
mandatory pay and price-level increases will enable the Library to
sustain its basic, traditional services while addressing its
inescapable digital future.
Digital Futures Increases ($18.8 million).--The Library's digital
futures budget request for fiscal 2002 covers support for the
Congressional Research Service's conduct and delivery of policy
analysis and research; the National Digital Library's continuing
infrastructure requirements; and the Library's computer security
infrastructure. Technology is going to define how we do business with
our principal client, the Congress of the United States, for the
foreseeable future. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) must have
necessary policy expertise to assist the Congress as it considers laws
affected by technology. The Director of CRS, Daniel Mulhollan, will
elaborate further on this request in his statement.
Collections Access, Preservation, and Security Increases ($11.8
million).--The Library's massive multiformat collections are the heart
of the institution. As these artifactual collections continue to grow,
reflecting the unceasing creativity of American and other authors, the
Library must continue to invest in securing and preserving these
cultural records, our primary assets. The funds requested for
collection care will enable the Library to deacidify books printed on
deteriorating paper; test options for developing a paper-strengthening
capability; clean and repair materials destined for remote storage;
and, following the opening of the Ft. Meade repository this year, we
will begin realigning the multimillion-volume general collections so
that books are properly housed.
The Library's budget request for fiscal year 2002--$442.7 million
in net appropriations (as adjusted) and $34.7 million in authority to
use receipts--supports the Library's mission to make its resources
available and useful in the increasingly digital 21st century. This is
a net decrease of $68.4 million or 13.4 percent below fiscal 2001
($121.4 million in decreases less program increases of $51.6 million
and receipts decreases of $1.4 million). A major part of the $51.6
million in program increases ($20 million) is needed to fund mandatory
pay raises (driven largely by the January 2002 pay raise of 4.6
percent) and unavoidable price-level increases. The Library is
requesting an increase of 108 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions--
from 4,099 to 4,207 FTEs. Even with such an increase, the Library would
still have 342 fewer FTEs (or 7.5 percent less) than in fiscal 1992.
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TODAY
The core of the Library is its incomparable collections--and the
specialists who interpret and share them. The Library's nearly 121
million items include almost all languages and media through which
knowledge and creativity are preserved and communicated.
The Library has more than 27 million items in its print
collections; 12 million photographs; 4 million maps, 2 million audio
recordings; 800,000 motion pictures, including the earliest movies ever
made; 4 million pieces of music; 54 million pages of personal papers
and manuscripts, including those of 23 Presidents of the United States,
as well as hundreds of thousands of scientific and government
documents.
New treasures are added each year. Notable acquisitions during
fiscal 2000 include: nearly 100 additional old volumes to help
reconstruct Thomas Jefferson's original library; a rare, complete and
perfect Venetian map of 1559 describing the whole world; the maps drawn
by Lafayette's cartographer; the papers of Philip Roth and Lucas Foss,
the Kenneth Walker architectural drawings; the letters of Edna St.
Vincent Millay; the first known map of Kentucky; the Coville
Photography collection; a unique collection of Russian sheet music
covers; and the film collection of Baron Walter de Mohrenschildt.
During fiscal 2000, the Library also reached agreement on the regular,
ongoing deposit of the archives of electronic journals published by the
American Physical Society; continued its relationship with Bell &
Howell on cost-effective access to its digital archive of U.S. doctoral
dissertations; and built on the existing gift agreement with the
Internet Archive to select and acquire open-access Web resources of
special interest to the Library--such as the Web sites of all U.S.
Presidential candidates.
Every workday, the Library's staff adds approximately 10,000 new
items to the collections after organizing and cataloging them. The
Library then finds ways to share them with the Congress and the
nation--by assisting users in the Library's reading rooms, by providing
on-line access across the nation, and by featuring the Library's
collections in cultural programs.
Major annual services include delivering more than 590,000
congressional research responses and services, processing more than
580,000 copyright claims, circulating more than 22 million audio and
braille books and magazines free to blind and physically handicapped
individuals all across America, and cataloging more than 250,000 books
and serials that provide the nation's libraries with inexpensive
bibliographic records and save them an estimated $268 million annually.
The Library also provides free on-line access, via the Internet, to
its automated information files, which contain more than 75 million
records--to congressional offices, Federal agencies, libraries, and the
public. The Library's Internet-based systems include major World Wide
Web (www) services (e.g, Legislative Information System, THOMAS,
(www.loc.gov), Global Legal Information Network, the Library of
Congress On-line Public Access Catalog, at www.catalog.loc.gov), and
various file transfer options.
Library of Congress programs and activities are funded by four
salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriations supporting congressional
services, national library services, copyright administration, services
to blind and physically handicapped people, and management support. A
separate appropriation funds furniture and furnishings.
DIGITAL FUTURES INITIATIVES
The Library of Congress is bringing America's story--in all its
variety--to everyone, whether at work, in their homes, in schools, or
in libraries. The digital explosion has imposed on us a new mission-
critical workload and the need to expand our high-quality free on-line
services to the Congress, K-12 education, and the American public. This
task must be superimposed on our equally critical traditional services
of acquiring, cataloging, preserving, serving, and storing artifactual
materials. The Library is requesting $18.8 million and a 80-FTE
increase to support the Digital Future, which consists of three
components:
National Digital Library (NDL).--The Library is requesting
$14,582,963 and 58 FTEs to: (1) develop a digital-repository
architecture to preserve current and future digital assets acquired as
part of the Library's permanent universal collection ($2,718,895); (2)
provide the basic technology infrastructure and support components that
must be in place (software, hardware, telecommunications, and technical
support staffing--$10,172,967) to enable the Library's program managers
and specialists to retain and deliver a digital library; and (3)
provide access services for sustaining the Library's digital outreach
to the nation ($1,691,101). This request supports the Library's
investment in the ongoing digital library program and infrastructure,
which provides access to important educational content. This request
will provide the resources to manage the full life cycle of digital
materials housed at the Library of Congress.
The Library's fiscal 2002 NDL budget request of $14,582,963 is
independent of--but compliments the responsible use of the special
appropriation of $99.8 million to lead a national strategic planning
effort for long-term preservation of digital materials. The Library's
experience in launching and delivering digital content and services to
the Congress and the public will inform and help shape this program.
But the Library's ability to do so depends on further support for its
own inescapable needs. The Congress directed that only $4,989,000, of
the $99.8 million special appropriation, may be initially spent for
planning as well as for the acquisition and preservation of digital
information that may otherwise vanish. The legislation calls for the
Library to work jointly with other Federal and nonfederal entities to
develop a phased and shared implementation plan to collect, maintain,
and provide permanent access to digital materials. We are planning to
build a national network of partners for collecting and preserving
digital materials with the Library as the primary partner and
facilitator of that process. After developing both the plan and the
collaborative process with Federal and nonfederal partners, the Library
must gain congressional approval of the implementation plan--at which
time an additional $19,956,000 and $74,835,000 (with matching funding)
would become available as specified in the legislation.
The Library's internal resource requirements will ultimately be
shaped by this collaborative process. We estimate that the plan will be
completed in late 2001; but this request for $14.6 million is needed to
position the Library for the heavy added responsibilities it will have
to assume, both to sustain its already taxed existing services and to
prepare the Library for the key role it will have to play in preserving
``born digital'' materials.
Congressional Research Service.--The Library is requesting
$3,491,044 and 17 FTEs for CRS to support the research needs of the
Congress. The request focuses on strengthening CRS's capacities to
support the Congress in the new technology-dependent environment, which
has significantly changed how the Congress works. CRS needs added
resources to address serious and significant gaps in its capacity to
analyze increasingly complex technology policy issues, to conduct
collaborative research, and to enhance its ability to apply technology
to work and communication processes.
Computer Security.--The Library is requesting $686,088 and 5 FTEs
to support the Library-wide Information Technology Services security
program. The Library's on-line services represent a critical
infrastructure for the operations of the legislative branch and the
nation. The new age of Internet opportunities also brings with it
vulnerabilities of the Library's automated systems to intrusion and
destruction. The Library is addressing these vulnerabilities by
implementing its Computer Security plan and needs these resources to
ensure the protection of our information assets.
COLLECTIONS ACCESS, PRESERVATION, AND SECURITY
A primary mission of the Library is to provide access to, preserve,
and secure its vast and largely irreplaceable artifactual collections.
The Library is requesting $11.8 million and a 24-FTE increase for
collections access, preservation, and security. Components of the
increase are:
--$3,205,500 to acquire motion picture and sound recording
equipment.--Several critical pieces of equipment that support
the Library's Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound
(MBRS) Division require replacement. The purchase of a Telecine
machine ($1,800,000) and two film processors ($385,000) is
critical given the lead time necessary to purchase,
manufacture, and install the equipment at the National Audio-
Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, during its
construction. A new Telecine machine is desperately needed to
convert film to video formats and create access copies for use
by researchers including congressional offices and staff. The
Telecine transfer process is the only method for making films
in the Library's collections accessible to constituents for
research use. The Library's existing Telecine machine is more
than 16 years old and increasingly difficult and costly to keep
in operation.
--$1,371,618 to support improved inventory management of the
collections.--Accomplishing inventory management of the
Library's books and bound periodicals is a cornerstone of the
Library's collections security plan. The Library of Congress
Integrated Library System (LC ILS) provides, for the first
time, the potential for effective tracking and inventory
control of all the Library's books and bound periodicals. The
essential next step is to conduct a physical inventory that
verifies the LC ILS item records with what is on the Library's
bookshelves. A physical inventory will assure that the LC ILS
item records that are available on-line accurately reflect what
the Library actually has on the shelf. The need to accomplish a
physical inventory has been cited in studies and audits for
many years. The Library's has consistently responded that the
LC ILS will at last provide a tool to support a comprehensive
inventory of the book collections. The Computer Science
Corporation, KPMG Peat Marwick, and the Library's own risk
assessments all highlight the lack of and need for the next
step: effective inventory control and tracking.
Establishing an accurate base is critical to inventorying the
collections periodically, providing efficient internal and
external circulation, and measuring changes in the status of
items. This base consists of recording actual holdings and
other information contained on shelf-markers, or files such as
the ``negative shelflist'' maintained by the Library's
Collections Management Division. Effective inventory control
and tracking depend on including in the LC ILS database
physical location information, but this information can be
added to the LC ILS only if the Library has the human resources
necessary to input the data. The inventory process is both
urgent and lengthy, and the Library must begin and sustain this
effort as soon as possible, or it may never be able to validate
control over the collections.
--$1,705,693 and 2 FTEs to support the second of five increments
required in our 30-year (one generation) mass deacidification
program.--A priority of the Library's preservation efforts is
deacidification of a significant portion of materials printed
on high-acid paper, which has dominated printing since the
middle of the 19th century. The Congress approved the first
increment of this critical program as part of the fiscal 2001
budget, and the Library requests a planned increase of
$1,705,693 and two FTEs to continue to scale up to $5.7 million
by fiscal year 2005. By 2005, the Library plans to have reached
the capacity to deacidify annually 300,000 books and 1,000,000
manuscript sheets.
--$1,604,093 and 11 FTEs to support preventive conservation actions
for collection materials.--The Library is requesting funds for
a plan to preserve and protect the Library's most valuable
collections through cost-effective and efficient preservation
measures. The plan provides enhanced security and preservation
for collections through proper housing, stack maintenance,
handling, and shelving procedures. Implementation of this plan
would make possible additional monitoring of collection-storage
environments, additional preservation-quality housings to
stabilize select general and special collections, and
additional paper strengthening for too-brittle-to-serve
documents.
--$996,596 to support the shifting of collections (includes $48,000
for equipment).--The Library is proposing a four-year program
that will realign collections with current reading room
locations and shift the remaining collections in the Thomas
Jefferson and John Adams buildings to take advantage of space
vacated by the transfer of collections to Fort Meade Module 1.
When Fort Meade Module 1 becomes operational in 2001, the
Library will be able to address its critical collections
storage space shortage on Capitol Hill. At present, more than
50,000 items are stacked on the floors throughout the decks,
with hundreds more being placed on the floor daily. Every day,
more than 1,200 new items arrive that must be accommodated in
the John Adams and the Thomas Jefferson building stacks. When
Fort Meade Module 1 is completed, the Library will begin
transferring 4,000 items per day from the John Adams and the
Thomas Jefferson buildings to Fort Meade, Maryland. Six months
after this transfer begins, the Library proposes to initiate a
four-year program to shift the collections remaining in the
John Adams and the Thomas Jefferson buildings to relieve
overcrowding and to serve better current and proposed reading
room locations. The project requires not only the direct
shifting of these collections, but also the integration of
significant quantities of material now on the floor and housed
in overflow areas. Approximately 16 million volumes will need
to be shifted, as well as the entire collection of microfilm
and microfiche. Although this program must be done according to
a specific logical sequence, it is imperative that it be done
as expeditiously as possible because the stacks are overcrowded
and much new material cannot now be properly accommodated.
--$939,099 and 9 FTEs to support folklife heritage and access.--
During fiscal 2000, the American Folklife Center (AFC)
developed a three-year strategic plan that addresses its core
mission. This plan was ratified by the AFC's Board of Trustees
at its spring 2000 meeting, and the Library's fiscal 2002
budget request responds to the goals and objectives that were
outlined and approved for the AFC. Additional resources would
increase documentation of unique American folk culture and the
processing and preservation of and public access to the
outstanding archival holdings of the AFC, which comprise more
than 1.5 million items.
The Congress in October 2000 directed by unanimous vote (Public
Law 106-380) that the AFC establish an oral history program to
collect video and audio histories of veterans of our Armed
Forces who served during a period of war. The budget request
includes a modest request of $249,776 to begin developing the
nationwide partnership program called for in the authorizing
legislation. The Library is consulting with the congressional
sponsors, veterans, and with military service organizations to
develop appropriate partnerships, including the active
participation of Members of Congress. But at least this much
money is needed to embark upon this immense project.
--$709,831 for improved physical control of the collections.--To
accomplish greater physical control, the Library proposes to
contract for security officers (contract guards) to permit
expanded security for three more reading rooms than are now
covered, to open two additional cloakrooms, and to establish
security at the Library's off-site collections storage site at
Fort Meade. All of these physical security steps are essential
elements of the Library's collections security plan.
--$250,000 and 1 FTE to support the new National Recording
Preservation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-474, approved November
9, 2000).--The Library is requesting $250,000 to establish the
new National Recording Registry and to implement the
comprehensive national sound recording preservation program.
The position is required to provide research and administrative
support for the new National Recording Preservation Board and
implement the national sound recording preservation program.
LAW LIBRARY
The Law Library of Congress maintains the largest collection of
legal materials in the world and also houses a unique body of lawyers
trained in foreign legal systems to supply legal research and analysis,
primarily for the Congress, on the laws of other nations, international
law, and comparative law. More than 200 jurisdictions are covered by
Law Library specialists, representing some 80 percent of the sovereign
entities of the world that issue laws and regulations. The Law Library
uses this talent to maintain and develop the breadth and depth of a
demanding collection. In addition to the Congress, the U.S. Courts, and
the executive branch, the legal community depends heavily on the Law
Library's collections and the unique expertise of its foreign legal
staff. The Law Library's staff of American-trained attorney-librarians
plays a similarly critical role in providing reference services to the
U.S. Congress whenever either chamber is in session (as mandated by 2
U.S.C. Sec. 138).
The Library is requesting a program increase of $1,030,388,
primarily for expanding the use of contract support (in those areas
where it has proven to be more cost-effective than hiring in-house
staff) to improve the processing, access, and security of the Law
Library collections, which now totals approximately one-eight of the
Library's total book collection. The Law Library needs additional
contract resources to process the average annual check-in of 150,000
items a year and to maintain and make this unsurpassed collection
accessible for meeting legal information needs of the Congress and the
nation. The existing staff of eight technicians is inadequate to
maintain services and make available a collection of 2.3 million
volumes. Contractor support will provide the following essential
collections maintenance activities: consistent shelf-reading (for
collections in the book stacks, the Law Library reading room and five
research directorate reference collections); prompt shelving of new
acquisitions and reshelving of circulated items (more than 200,000
annually); shifting of the collections; filing in various formats;
annual review; weeding or reassignment of materials; and timely
revision of affected LC ILS holdings records. In addition, contract
funding is requested for coverage of the Law Library's microform
collection during public service hours and to monitor increasing use of
the foreign law research divisions' collections.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE
The Library's Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective
copyright protection--annually processing approximately 580,000 claims,
of which more than 515,000 are registered for copyright. More than
752,000 works were transferred to the Library during fiscal 2000, with
an estimated value of $32 million. The Office also annually records
approximately 18,500 documents with up to 400,000 titles and responds
annually to more than 380,000 requests for information.
The Library requests a decrease in the Copyright Office's
Offsetting Collections Authority--from $23,500,000 to $21,880,000. The
$1,620,000 decrease in Offsetting Collections Authority is based on
projected annual registration receipts of $21,500,000 and the use of
$380,000 from the Copyright Office no-year account.
The Copyright Office no-year receipt account balance totals
$4,289,000 as of September 30, 2000. Because registration receipts
could be $2 million less than the authorized level ($23.5 million)
during fiscal 2001, the no-year receipt account balance could drop to
$2,289,000 as of September 30, 2001. The Copyright Office proposes that
the no-year receipt account balance of $2,289,000 at the start of
fiscal 2002 be used for information technology planning and development
and to implement business process reengineering. The Library believes
that the fees collected from the public that are in excess of current
needs (i.e., the no-year account funds) should be retained for the
significant automation improvements that will be essential to enhance
service to the copyright community. The proposed receipts level of
$21,880,000, is based upon the above projections and the retention of
no-year funds for the future.
The Copyright Office is in the process of assessing the current fee
schedule to determine if fee adjustments are warranted in fiscal 2002.
Even if the Office were to implement a fee increase on July 1, 2002, it
would not now (as it did not in fiscal 1999) impact the year in which
the change was effected (i.e., fiscal 2002).
In fiscal 2000, the Copyright Office began a business process
reengineering (BPR) project to study its major business processes.
Using new technology, the Copyright Office is planning to improve
customer service and enhance operational efficiency and security of the
materials. The Copyright Office anticipates that major changes will be
made over a period of several years after the study is completed later
this year. The Library is requesting an increase of $644,000 to
implement the BPR study, including $380,000 from Copyright Office no-
year funds and $264,000 from the furniture and furnishings
appropriation.
By implementing its collections security process of marking and
tagging in a more cost-effective manner, the Copyright Office saved
$620,000 in fiscal 2001. The Library will shortly forward a
reprogramming request to the Committee to authorize permanently the use
of these funds for the Copyright Office's information technology
planning and development project. The approval of this reprogramming
request is essential to the Copyright Office's efforts to improve
automation and better provide public services.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ``DMCA,'' enacted at the end
of the 105th Congress, gave the Copyright Office many new duties and
responsibilities. The DCMA requires the Copyright Office to conduct a
rulemaking every three years on exemptions that permit circumvention of
technological access control measures in order to engage in
noninfringing uses of copyrighted works. Two relatively narrow
exemptions were granted on October 28, 2000, but at the conclusion of
this process of conducting the rulemaking, I expressed several concerns
that might warrant congressional consideration. The rapid changes in
technology may require the rulemaking process to be conducted at
intervals shorter than the triennial review enacted under the DMCA. In
addition, I ask that the Congress address the further refinement of the
appropriate criteria for assessing the harm to noninfringing uses in
scholarly, academic, and library communities as well as guidance on the
precise scope of the term ``class of works.''
NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
The Library administers a free national library program of braille
and recorded materials for blind and physically handicapped persons
through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped (NLS). Under a special provision of the U.S. copyright law
and with the permission of authors and publishers of works not covered
by the provision, NLS selects and produces full-length books and
magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette. Reading
materials are distributed to a cooperating network of regional and
subregional (local, nonfederal) libraries where they are circulated to
eligible borrowers. Reading materials and playback machines are sent to
borrowers and returned to libraries by postage-free mail. Established
by an act of Congress in 1931 to serve blind adults, the program was
expanded in 1952 to include children, in 1962 to provide music
materials, and again in 1966 to include individuals with other physical
impairments that prevent the reading of standard print.
The fiscal year 2002 budget maintains program services by funding
mandatory pay and price level increases totaling $1,262,940. The budget
also supports the exploration of alternative digital technological
possibilities that would provide a less costly, more efficient,
internationally acceptable, and user-friendly delivery system. Funding
the fiscal year 2002 increase is necessary to ensure that all eligible
individuals are provided appropriate reading materials.
LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC has
requested a capital budget of $10,105,000, an increase of $4,095,000.
The AOC capital budget includes funding totaling $6,220,000 in
appropriations for five projects that were requested by the Library.
The largest Library-requested project, amounting to $5 million, is
for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper,
Virginia. The Congress has approved the first two increments of the
appropriations' share for the Center in fiscal 2000 and 2001 ($6.6
million has already been appropriated). This fiscal 2002 budget request
is the amount needed to build toward completing the Federal share of
$16.5 million for renovating and equipping the facility. Assurance of
the government support is critical in gaining the far larger amount (at
least 75 percent of the total) that we are raising privately for this
project.
The four other Library-requested projects support the preservation
of the Library's collections and space modifications in the James
Madison Building. Library-requested projects, as well as AOC identified
projects, are prioritized based on critical need and in accordance with
both the strategic and the security plans of the Library.
I urge the Committee to support the Architect's Library Buildings
and Grounds budget, which is critical to the Library's mission.
The Library is grateful for the decision by the Capitol
Preservation Commission to authorize $700,000 for a design study of a
tunnel between the Thomas Jefferson Building and the proposed Capitol
Visitor Center. Since 1991, the Library has worked with Members of
Congress and the Architect of the Capitol as an integral partner in the
Visitor Center project. The Library offers unique resources for
contributing to the mission of the Visitor Center through facilities
that will permit sharing recorded performances from the world's largest
collection of the performing arts and will showcase the unique role
that the Congress has played in housing not just the mint record of
American creativity but the personal papers of 23 American presidents
and much of America's history in the Library's collections. The
construction of a Visitor Center tunnel connecting the Capitol Building
with the magnificent Thomas Jefferson Building provides direct access
both (1) for the Congress to the Members' Room and the Jefferson
Congressional Reading Room, and (2) for the public to the exhibition
spaces in the building so beautifully restored by the Congress. The
tunnel is a critical element of the project and should be approved for
construction now rather than later.
The Office of Compliance issued its Report on Fire Safety
Inspections, Library of Congress Buildings, Conducted Under the
Congressional Accountability Act on January 25, 2001, which was the
culmination of a nearly 12-month fire and life safety inspection of
Library of Congress buildings on Capitol Hill. This external audit,
authorized by the Congressional Accountability Act, is a continuation
of Office of Compliance inspection efforts that took place earlier at
the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Senate Office Buildings, and the U.S. House
of Representatives Office Buildings. The fire safety issues that were
identified in Library buildings are similar to those found in other
Capitol Hill buildings. The Library of Congress is, without
reservation, committed to conforming with fire and life safety
regulations and, along with the Architect of the Capitol, is
systematically addressing all the identified issues. While the
condition of the fire system in Library buildings should be and will be
improved, we are confident that the buildings are basically safe for
Library staff and collections.
AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
The 106th Congress passed four important pieces of authorizing
legislation that improve the Library's financial management and further
support the Library's national mission.
The Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000,
Public Law 106-481, represents a milestone in the Library's financial
management. The bill creates three revolving funds to manage important
elements of the Library's operations including services to Federal
libraries (FEDLINK), research reports and studies for Federal entities
(Federal Research Division), gift shop sales, photoduplication
services, and duplication services associated with the National Audio-
Visual Conservation Center.
The Congress also enacted the National Recording Preservation Act,
Public Law 106-474, modeled on the highly successful National Film
Preservation Act. Initial funding of $250,000 is requested as part of
the fiscal 2002 budget. During fiscal 2001, the Library is proceeding
to bring the Board into existence and establish a plan to produce a
comprehensive survey of the sound preservation needs.
Finally, the 106th Congress enacted two bills that make use of the
collections and curatorial and staff expertise of the Library: Public
Law 106-99, which authorizes the Library to prepare and publish a
history of the House of Representatives, and Public Law 106-380, which
creates an oral history archive for veterans in the American Folklife
Center. The Library has published preliminary guidelines for the
preparation of their oral histories on its Web site, but in fiscal
2002, it will need to engage a project director to organize the
national network of partner organizations that will be required to
accomplish the very ambitious aims of this legislation, design and
mount a Web site for the project, and begin processing the audiovisual
histories that the Library will be receiving under the Act.
The Library is also seeking a technical correction to the statute
authorizing the revolving fund for duplication services, which would
clarify the inclusion of film as well as audio and video duplication.
COOK CLASS ACTION DISCRIMINATION CASE
The Library took another step forward to settle a longstanding
class-action discrimination suit filed against it by Howard Cook and
others in 1975. On January 18, 2001, District Judge Norma Holloway
Johnson accepted the joint report of the Library and the Cook class
action plaintiffs, which resolved the disputes related to a 1998 motion
filed by plaintiffs alleging violations of the 1996 settlement
agreement. The joint report includes a new Library hiring process to be
used from March 1, 2001, through December 1, 2002, and a new
statistical methodology to be used to report on the new hiring process.
All other matters contained in the 1996 Settlement Agreement expired
upon the court's January 18, 2001, order.
CENTER FOR RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
As part of the fiscal 2001 legislative branch appropriations bill,
the Congress approved the establishment of the Center for Russian
Leadership Development, a permanent center to provide emerging
political leaders of Russia with firsthand exposure to the American
free market economic system and the operation of the American
democratic institutions. The Library's budget for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 funded successful pilot programs that brought an unprecedented
3,650 Russian political leaders to America. Because the center is not
yet independently organized and will not be part of the Library's
fiscal 2002 budget, the Library has included on behalf of the center
(as an information item only) a $10 million request for the center's
appropriated support. We anticipate that the center's board, when
appointments to the Board have been made by the House, Senate, and
Librarian of Congress, will submit an amended budget justification to
the Congress.
SUMMARY
``Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,'' James Madison wrote in
1822. ``And a people who mean to be their own governours, must arm
themselves with the power which knowledge brings.'' In 1800, the
Congress established a Congressional Library to help provide it with
the information required to administer this questioning and expanding
land. Thanks to the continuing vision and support of the Congress, its
Library has expanded and become not only a resource for the Congress
but also the de facto national library of the United States and one of
the world's greatest intellectual and cultural resources.
At the start of the third millennium and the Library's third
century, the Library must acquire, preserve, and ensure rights-
protected access to ``born digital'' works that are playing an
increasingly important role in the intellectual, commercial, and
creative life of the United States. The amount of ``born digital''
works that have already been lost is unknown but substantial. The
average life of a Web page is only about 75 days. Given the
immeasurable size and short life span of much of the Web's content, the
Library clearly faces a substantial challenge in both (1) defining the
scope of its collecting responsibilities in this new world and (2)
developing a whole new range of partnerships and cooperative
relationships to continue fulfilling our central historic mission in
the new digital universe. In conformity with the Congress's recent
special appropriation, the Library's digital strategy will focus first
on formulating an implementable national strategy for the life-cycle
management of digital materials as part of the national collection. The
Library must make sure that it has the digital infrastructure that can
be scaled in the future to support and sustain the national digital
information strategy that we will be cooperatively developing.
Librarians will be needed more than ever before as objective
knowledge navigators amid the sea of unorganized and often undependable
information that is increasingly inundating the Internet. Libraries
will be needed to assure free public access for those who would
otherwise be on the losing side of the digital divide--and also for
those who might otherwise never learn to work both with new information
and with old books. Libraries, like America itself, add the new without
subtracting the old. Properly used, the Internet will help (a)
scientifically to solve common problems shared by widely dispersed
groups in fields like health and the environment, and (b)
humanistically to share on-line the materials that express the
distinctive cultural identities of different peoples.
On behalf of the Library and its staff, I thank the Congress and
the American people for the outpouring of support for the Library of
Congress during its bicentennial celebration. The Library celebrated
its 200th anniversary last year with a wide array of programs and
activities. A resolution by the Congress commended ``the Library of
Congress and its employees, both past and present, on 200 years of
service to the Congress and the Nation.'' A Presidential proclamation
on April 21, 2000, stated that ``The Library of Congress is truly
America's Library.'' Commemorative coins and a stamp were issued. There
were privately funded bicentennial exhibitions, symposia, events, and
publications. Almost 1,300 Local Legacies projects from all 50 states--
were registered by more than 400 Members of Congress documenting
traditional community life. Many special donations were made to the
collections; and the Library was given the largest single monetary gift
in its history by Mr. John W. Kluge.
The Library of Congress is entering a critical period when it must,
in effect, superimpose a select library of digital materials onto its
traditional artifactual library if it is to continue to be a responsive
and dynamic force for the Congress and the nation. We are not seeking
appropriations for any new function, but merely trying to sustain our
historic core function of acquiring, preserving, and making accessible
knowledge and information, which are now being generated and
communicated in a radically new medium.
There is a special need this year for the Law Library and the
American Folklife Center. They will play important national roles but
have been seriously depleted, having received no significant funding
increases from the Congress for many years.
With congressional support of our fiscal 2002 budget, the Library
of Congress will continue its dedicated service to the work of the
Congress and to the creative life of the American people.
______
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to personally present for your consideration the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for the Congressional Research Service.
OBSERVATIONS
The rise of technology and the Information Age have fundamentally
changed the way Congress works, from the nature of the public policy
issues you debate, to the ways in which you conduct your work each day
to the methods you and your staff use to communicate both within and
outside of Capitol Hill.
There are new issues before you. Technology is impacting virtually
every public policy area that you consider. From privacy rights to
taxation, you consider technology issues that are complex,
interdisciplinary, highly specialized, rapidly changing, difficult to
master expeditiously, and increasingly sophisticated. The 107th
Congress is demonstrating continued intense interest in policy issues
arising from the production and use of information technology. Members
of the 106th Congress introduced hundreds of information technology
bills and virtually every committee considered legislation related to
some aspect of information technology. This is in marked contrast to
over four years ago when Members of the 104th Congress introduced only
several dozen information technology bills.
Your day to day work has changed as well. You and your staff
operate in an environment of intense immediacy. You need information
today--tomorrow, next week, next month are too late. Given this
environment, you have turned to technologies that will provide you with
information as quickly and efficiently as possible. You expect to
access information 24 hours a day, seven days a week from wherever you
are, be it in your Capitol Hill offices, at home, in your districts, or
overseas as a member of a congressional delegation. You and your staff
have less time to read through books and journals to glean information
you need; rather you more and more use the Web and the Internet for
facts, figures, and targeted information that you can download,
manipulate, and pass along.
E-mail and the Internet have also revolutionized the way you
communicate--among yourselves, with your staff, with your constituents,
and with the hundreds of groups and organizations that you rely upon
for information and insights, including CRS. This trend is particularly
evident in your staff, who are increasingly technically savvy. For them
(some have dubbed the e-generation) the ease and immediacy of e-mail is
more conducive to their work style than voice mail and ``phone tag''.
The research and analytical work we do in CRS to support your
legislative responsibilities has also been changing. The complexity and
inter-relatedness of many of the issues facing Congress require CRS
staff to be able to work together on issues and share data and
information. As research is shifting from a primarily paper-based world
to a digitally-dominated universe, research methods are evolving. The
nature of CRS research is changing: from individual research to team
and Service-wide research; from a single discipline perspective to
integrated, multi-disciplinary perspectives; from individual data and
information owners to groups who own and share their research; from
main-frame dominant applications to network-dependent applications; and
from paper and microfiche to the Internet, the Web, and multi-media.
What do these changes mean? They mean as Congress changes, so too
must CRS. When Congress re-constituted CRS in the early 1970's, it did
so with a vision of us as an extension of their own personal and
committee staffs--a shared pool of staff that could work seamlessly
alongside Members and staff to support the legislative work of the
nation.
We take seriously our statutory obligation to each Member and
committee of Congress to provide you with the best analyses and
information this country has to offer, and to do so in ways that meet
your legislative needs and time frames.
You expect CRS to keep pace with you, and your staff, in addressing
information technology policy issues and in integrating new
technologies into our work. Just as you are grappling with policy
implications of complicated technology issues, so too do you expect CRS
to be analyzing and studying these issues. Just as you are
communicating through e-mail, so too do you expect CRS to communicate
through e-mail. Just as you are utilizing web pages to gather and
disseminate legislative information, so too do you expect CRS to have a
strong web presence. And just as you and your staff go ``on-line'' to
retrieve data and information directly from other sources, so too do
you expect CRS to provide comprehensive access to data and analyses
that you need.
Given these observations, the bottom line for CRS is simple: if we
cannot align our analytic, information and technology resources to work
in the same way that you work, then we risk failing to meet our
statutory obligations.
CHANGES MADE BY CRS TO ADJUST
I would not be coming to you if we did not need help. Since I
became Director in 1994, I have insisted that CRS' annual budget
requests reflect the continuing fiscal constraints on Legislative
Branch appropriations and the daunting task facing this Subcommittee in
allocating scarce resources among many pressing needs. CRS has worked
hard within exceedingly tight appropriations to not only maintain the
quality of our work for the Congress but also to improve it. I believe
we have done remarkably well given that funding for staff has been
reduced by more than 117 positions, approximately fourteen percent,
over the last nine years. This decrease is a result of our failure to
obtain full funding for all ongoing mandatory expenditures. These
circumstances have posed significant challenges to CRS and we have had
to adjust our resources internally to accommodate them. Specifically,
over the last several years:
--We have shifted resources to meet the most urgent legislative needs
of Congress and to develop new tools for Congress, such as the
Legislative Information System and the CRS Web Site: by
reorganizing the Service to maximize staff flexibility; not
hiring production or technical support; not hiring any senior
level analysts; not back-filling certain positions; not hiring
key organizational support positions; and establishing, with
the cooperation of our labor organization, a program for
detailing staff to different positions.
--We have used contract funds to help develop research capacity: to
support the Congress in addressing issues related to social
security, welfare and long-term care; to assess the information
needs of CRS research staff; and to meet short-term needs for
research assistance (e.g., actuarial expertise and
translations).
--We have secured outside resources when appropriate: received funds
from the Robert Wood Johnson, Ewing Marion Kauffman and Henry
Luce foundations, among others, to help build capacity in
research areas and undertake special programs for Members;
partnered with schools of public policy for needed research;
and utilized volunteers and fellows to help build important
research capacities.
These internal adjustments have been necessary, but they have not
been easy. We have been forced to make Hobson choices regarding the
allocation of our budget and staffing resources--choices that have
pitted our analytic capacity against our information technology
capacity. For example, in response to the impending retirement of
nearly half of our staff by 2006, we have devoted significant resources
to shoring up our analytic capacity. We are grateful for the support
you provided to our succession initiative which enabled us to fill
fifteen entry level analyst positions. In addition, we devoted forty-
one positions from the base for these succession efforts. I'm pleased
to report that we have been very successful--we have experienced a
retention rate of ninety-two percent for staff hired under this
initiative. In addition, we have regularly updated our risk assessment
staff survey, and continue to use this assessment in making all staff
resource allocation decisions.
Because we have had to focus resources on ensuring succession,
however, we have been unable to build the technical capacity we need.
This has forced our analysts and managers to explore and develop
technology initiatives on their own as add-ons to their regular jobs.
However, the Congress needs our analytic staff to devote their time
developing and delivering original analysis, not learning how to be
computer programmers or data administrators.
We can no longer ``make do'' with home grown technology
entrepreneurs. It is clear that we are beginning to lag behind in
providing analytic support for information and technology policy issues
and in integrating information technology efficiencies and capacities
into our work.
We are falling short in assisting you in critical new subject
areas; in working with you in an integrated, secure, and robust
technology-based environment that allows us to provide you with the
analysis and information you need, where and when you need it; and in
providing the technical tools that our researchers need--not ``bells
and whistles'' but essential ``nuts and bolts''--to perform their work
for the Congress. We must take action now or we will fall even further
behind. That is what this budget request is all about. Our current
resources are not enough to meet the new and increasing demands of
policy making. We can no longer adjust our work environment to meet
congressional needs. We must overhaul what we do and how we do it.
BUDGET REQUEST
Our fiscal 2002 request is $81.1 million; this is an increase of
$7.71 million over fiscal 2001. Approximately $4.22 million of this
increase is needed to maintain our current services by funding
mandatory cost-of-living and other pay and inflation increases on
current operations. The balance, $3.49 million, is needed to (1)
acquire capacity to better analyze complex information and technology
policy issues and (2) equip ourselves with the leadership and technical
staff, skills and tools necessary to address serious and significant
gaps in the capacity to analyze complex technology policy issues, to
conduct collaborative research, and to apply technology to work and
communication processes.
EXPERT STAFF
CRS does not have adequate staff expertise to provide high-level
analysis on sophisticated information and technology policy issues. Nor
can we ``home-grow'' this expertise. Policy areas such as cyber
terrorism requires significantly different spheres of understanding
than are needed for dealing with most traditional forms of terrorism.
Privacy issues and potential solutions in a market-drive, internet
setting are radically different than issues surrounding government
information as addressed in the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of
Information Act.
We are asking for $580,000 to hire the five senior analysts who
will provide high level expertise and Service-wide leadership on
technology policy issues and implications as they affect various legal
areas (such as privacy, fraud, intellectual property), government
information policy, national security, telecommunications technologies,
and economic issues of the technology and information industries. These
resources will enable CRS to provide the Congress with a core of high
level experts who will: lead and coordinate the Service's work on
information and technology policy issues across disciplines; guide and
mentor other CRS research staff at various grade levels, thereby
building additional capacity in these critical research areas; create
and lead Service-wide teams to address key congressional concerns; and
develop innovative products and services to inform the Congress about
information and technology policy issues.
EQUIPPING THE CRS RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT TO ALIGN WITH HOW THE CONGRESS
WORKS
If CRS is to continue to be an extension of congressional staff and
the best public policy research organization that Congress needs and
deserves, then we must acquire the high-level technical leadership and
skills we require to enable us to build and maintain a secure and
adaptable technology-based research environment. Such an environment is
the critical underpinning of all of our research activities supporting
Congress--it provides the blueprint for how all of CRS's systems,
knowledge, and information can be shared, preserved, delivered, and
made available to the Congress.
We are also requesting 12 FTEs and $2.9 million in fiscal year 2002
to begin equipping ourselves with the leadership and technical staff,
skills, and tools we need to effectively and pro-actively use
technology to support Congress as its working environment continues to
accommodates technological change. The information technology
investment that we are requesting you to support will enable CRS to
make significant progress in improving interactive communications with
Congress and your access to us and to our products as well as in
transforming our research work to 21st century methods.
More specifically, the funds requested will be used to: improve
protection of confidential congressional information; provide secure
access to CRS for district offices; support the delivery of innovative
interactive products and services through the CRS web site; move
innovative electronic research products (e.g., electronic briefing
books, e coverage of current legislative issues) from pilot products
into full-fledged products. This request will also support implementing
on-line document creation and editing to facilitate team research
projects such as the Electronic Briefing Books and our new Legislative
Issues Service on the CRS web site; laying a foundation for managing
CRS electronic data and information for as long as needed; developing
new multi-user quantitative databases, and modifying and documenting
existing databases that are at-risk due to inadequate documentation;
and expanding our capacity for critically-needed electronic storage.
Our current technical staff are not sufficient in number and do not
have the requisite skills to undertake the kind of technology
transformation needed. CRS must invest in hiring staff with the
expertise to lead our efforts to implement the processes and
technologies needed to ensure our accessibility to the Congress and to
guarantee the reliability, accuracy, and timeliness of our services and
products.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this request does not propose funding tactical change;
rather, it supports the strategic, mission-critical change necessary
for CRS to continue fulfilling its statutory mandate as the key non-
partisan public policy research arm for Congress in the digital
environment. It is not about coping with the future, it is about
confronting the future that is already here and threatens to leave us
in its wake. As the Congress is placing new and increasing reliance on
information technologies so too must CRS. We at CRS have always aligned
our work directly with your work--this is our mission; this is our
mandate. To continue the strong tradition of service and reliability,
CRS needs your help now. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
CRS's future with you. We at CRS stand ready to assist you as you
consider this request and the consequences and challenges it poses for
the Service and the Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
Copyright Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Copyright Office budget request for fiscal
year 2002. We seek the funding necessary to permit the Copyright Office
to administer the nation's copyright law and provide expert policy
assistance to Congress and the Executive Branch so that the nation
maintains a strong and effective copyright system--one that serves both
owners and users of copyrighted works.
I would like to note at the outset that our budget request has been
revised to some extent from our original submission to take into
account important planning and public service improvement activities in
which we are now engaged. We are withdrawing the CORDS Full Large-Scale
Production request which lowers our appropriations request for fiscal
year 2002 by $2,621,185 and 13 FTEs.
Fiscal Year 2002 Request Summary
To enable us to fully serve Congress and the American people, it is
critical that the Office's net appropriation be increased from $9.2
million to $12.8 million--$1 million less than the fiscal 1999 net
appropriation of $13,771,000. We have growing policy support
requirements to Congress and the Executive Branch, as well as a growing
regulatory workload from passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, that require adequate resources. The Office is requesting
$12,836,815 in net appropriations and $21,880,000 in offsetting
collections authority. This represents a $3,668,843 million net
appropriation increase over the fiscal 2001 net appropriation of
$9,167,972. The increase is needed to preserve the No-Year account from
a further reduction and to fund $1,668,843 for mandatories and price
level changes.
The Copyright Office request for its Offsetting Collections
Authority represents a decrease of $1,620,000 from $23,500,000 to
$21,880,000. The decrease is based on projected annual revenue receipts
of $21,500,000 and expending $380,000 from the Copyright Office No-Year
account. The Copyright Office believes that the fees collected from the
public that are in the No-Year account should be retained and
reinvested into providing improved services for the copyright
community. As such, we strongly urge the Congress to approve the
retention of the No-Year account funds for BPR implementation and
information technology improvements.
Approximately two-thirds of the Copyright Office budget is funded
by fee receipts, primarily fees paid for registering copyrighted works
in the Office. In July 1999, we implemented a new fee schedule which
raised our basic registration fee by 50 percent, from $20 to $30. This
fee increase has resulted in fewer copyright registrations, which
impacts our copyright system and the Library of Congress collections.
The policy and regulatory functions of the Office--activities
benefitting the nation as a whole instead of providing a specific
service to an individual or organization--are funded by net
appropriations. These activities include support to the Congress and
Executive branch agencies, legal and regulatory work under the
Copyright Act, and public education efforts.
Major Copyright Office Initiatives
The Copyright Office has two very important, closely-aligned,
initiatives now underway. Both initiatives--information technology
planning and business process reengineering--will shape the Copyright
Office's future and its service to the American people. Just as the
copyright law has had to adjust to technological changes, our daily
business operations and processes are challenged in similar ways.
Information Technology
We have begun a major reassessment and planning effort regarding
our information technology (IT) systems. The Copyright Office relies on
the collection, processing, storage and presentation of information to
fulfill its duties under the U.S. Copyright Act. Information processing
and products are critical in the registration of claims to copyright,
the recordation of documents pertaining to copyrighted works, statutory
licenses, and the Office's responsibilities as an agency of public
record. Access to information is also the basis for the substantive
policy and regulatory work the Office performs for the U.S. Congress
and the executive branch.
Currently, the Copyright Office has more than 20 separate
information systems. For the most part, they have been developed
separately and are not supportive of full information sharing and
integration. Some rely on hardware that is aging and becoming
increasingly vulnerable to failure.
Two principal factors will shape Copyright Office IT planning in
the next few years. First, in order to fully serve our customers, the
Office needs to have its current public services available online to
the greatest extent possible. Second, we will soon make a decision on
the business process reengineering (BPR) option we will pursue and
complete a BPR implementation plan this summer. This effort will result
in significant changes to our current processes, organization, and
facilities. In addition, the changes will rely heavily on the use of
new technology, all of which will result in more effective and timely
service to our customers.
Our original direction on reengineering was to work within the
confines of our existing IT structure. The results of our reengineering
work have shown us that we need to accelerate the Office's use of new
technology, not only for the processes impacted by reengineering, but
for the entire Office. We need to undertake a fundamental
transformation in our public services: from paper and hard-copy based
processing to primarily electronic processing. Our processes must
change from traditional manual capabilities to IT-enabled functions.
This year, through our Copyright Office Electronic Registration,
Recordation and Deposit System (CORDS), we will electronically receive
about 30,000 digital works for registration. This is about 5 percent of
our total registrations. Now we need to broaden our IT approach so that
electronic receipt and processing becomes the primary way we register
works. We will encourage that works submitted for registration be
submitted online. Once they are submitted, we will use technology to a
much greater extent than we have, to process them quickly and ensure a
timely public record.
This not only helps the Copyright Office provide better public
services, but is also is a key component of the Library's digital
strategy which will allow more digital works to be acquired for the
Library's collections through copyright registration and through the
mandatory deposit provisions of section 407 of the copyright law.
Our newly-formed Copyright Office Information Systems Working Group
has just begun its work. So that this critical initial planning can be
completed and specific resource requirements identified, I am
requesting a modification in our fiscal year 2002 request.
Until we revise our overall IT strategy to respond to our new
business processes, I believe we should not proceed with funding for
the CORDS Full Large-Scale Production System, as requested in our
original submission. We do need to maintain the CORDS system so that we
can continue to provide an electronic registration option for those now
using it and others who wish to. I expect that usage of the current
CORDS system will increase in terms of the number of users and quantity
and types of works registered. Yet, we do not want to accelerate
further development of CORDS until we establish an overall electronic
delivery of services strategy.
I request that we proceed as follows:
--Permanently reprogram $620,000 savings from Marking and Tagging in
fiscal year 2001 to Information Technology Planning and
Development. In the current fiscal year, these funds would be
used to conduct a requirements analysis which will provide us
with an IT strategy that: supports reengineering, redevelops
our aging systems and expands the electronic delivery of our
public services. (Our Marking and Tagging requirements will
continue to be met and security of materials will be one of the
principal objectives in the IT requirements analysis.)
--Based on the completed requirements analysis, in fiscal year 2002
we will begin systems analysis, design and development work. A
multiple-award contract will be developed to rebuild and
integrate our information systems to meet our new requirements.
We plan to have this contract awarded by July 2002.
--In fiscal year 2002, we will use the reprogrammed IT funds
($620,000) for IT contract management and CORDS user support to
provide hands-on technical advisory assistance to our current
CORDS users.
I very much appreciate your consideration of this modified request
for next fiscal year. This shift in funding is critical to our being
able to fully meet our statutory obligations and fully serve the
American people in the future.
Business Process Reengineering: Initial Implementation
The second initiative involves our initial steps to carry out our
Business Processing Reengineering Implementation Plan. The plan will be
implemented in phases beginning in fiscal 2002. The Copyright Office
No-Year account will fund the three-year implementation, except for
furniture and furnishings.
In fiscal 2000, the Copyright Office began the BPR project by
awarding a contract to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP to conduct a study
of its business processes. At the same time, the Office appointed a
senior Project Manager, who is an expert in Copyright Office
procedures, to oversee the contract and lead the Office BPR team. The
project focuses on six major business processes: registration of
claims, recordation of documents, requests for information, acquisition
of deposits, maintenance of our public records, and financial record
keeping. Reengineering will accomplish the following objectives:
--Improve operations and service that will achieve better processing
times and create timely public records;
--Enhance operational efficiency through the use of new or
alternative technologies;
--Contain the costs of registration, recordation and other services;
--Strengthen security within the Copyright Office; and
--Use staff and space more efficiently.
In fiscal 2001, the Project Manager is leading a team of twelve
Copyright Office staff and several PriceWaterhouseCoopers contractor
staff to document the current environment, plan new processes, and
develop an implementation plan. The Office plans to complete the study
by June 2001.
We are requesting authority to spend $380,000 from our No-Year
account for human resource actions (e.g., re-writing position
descriptions, performing job analyses) as well as staff training to
retool the workforce. A contractor will be hired to perform space
design, and some funds will be used for automation equipment and
software.
The Copyright Office Mission
The Copyright Office administers the copyright law and is the
primary source of copyright expertise in the Federal Government. It
provides expert assistance to Congress on intellectual property matters
and advises Congress on anticipated changes in U.S. copyright law. It
analyzes and assists in the drafting of copyright legislation and
legislative reports, conducts and provides studies for Congress and
offers advice to Congress on international matters, including
compliance with multilateral agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement.
The Office works with the State Department, the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office, and the Patent and Trademark Office in
providing technical expertise in negotiations for international
intellectual property agreements; provides technical assistance to
other countries in developing their own copyright laws; and through its
International Copyright Institute and other international work,
promotes worldwide understanding and cooperation in providing
protection for intellectual property.
The Copyright Office is also an office of central public record, a
place where claims to copyright are registered and where documents
relating to copyright may be recorded. The Copyright Office furnishes
information about the provisions of the copyright law and the
procedures for registration, explains the operations and practices of
the Copyright Office, and makes available the public records of the
Office. The Office also administers various compulsory licensing
provisions of the law, which includes collecting and distributing
royalties. Additionally, the Copyright Office and the Library of
Congress administer the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP),
which meet for limited times for the purpose of setting terms of
certain licenses, adjusting rates and distributing royalties.
Given its role as administrator of the copyright law, creator of a
central public record of copyright ownership, technical adviser to
Congress and government agencies, and a source of copyright information
to the public, the Copyright Office has a direct and vital role in the
development and resolution of intellectual property policy, legislation
and information.
Copyright Industries--A Growing Force in The U.S. Economy
Copyright is the segment of intellectual property law that protects
the creative output of millions of composers, lyricists, painters,
sculptors, photographers, authors, computer programs, graphic and
performing artists, dramatists, motion picture producers and compilers.
U.S. copyright industries accounted for about 5 percent of U.S. Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), or over $450 billion in added economic value in
1999. In the last twenty years, the core copyright industries' share of
GDP grew more than twice as fast as the rest of the economy. Should
this trend continue as expected, the economic impact of the copyright
industries will become an even more significant part of the American
economy, emphasizing the need for strong copyright protection, and
bringing to the fore increasingly challenging issues with which the
copyright system must deal.
Copyright Policy Challenges: Technological Change and the Digital
Environment
Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the copyright law
has had to adjust to a vast array of technological changes. The
challenges to copyright posed by the convergence of today's computer
and communications technologies are more serious and far-reaching than
those posed by the technological developments of the past. The current
technologies have the potential to impact every right in the copyright
bundle.
The increasing use and distribution of digital information raise
significant issues regarding access to and security of copyrighted
works. For works available in electronic form, there is often no limit
to the number of people who can access a work simultaneously through
the Internet and alter or modify them with ease. The Constitution
provides for intellectual property protection with the goal of
promoting public access to knowledge and innovation. The information
infrastructure of the World Wide Web and other computer networks
requires careful maintenance of the public good and private interest
balance that has guided U.S. intellectual property laws over the past
200 years.
Fiscal 2000 Accomplishments, Fiscal 2001 Focus and Fiscal 2002 Plans
Policy Responsibilities Under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act
A major focus of the Copyright Office's legislative efforts during
fiscal 2000 and in fiscal 2001 continued to be the completion of tasks
entrusted to us by Congress in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA), Public Law 105-304. The DMCA placed several policy-related
responsibilities on the Office, including specific studies and
rulemakings.
The DMCA made a number of amendments to Title 17, including the
addition of Chapter 12 of the copyright statute, which address
technological protection and management systems for copyrighted works.
Section 1201(a)(1) makes it unlawful to circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
However, the prohibition against circumvention does not apply to users
of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if those
users are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period,
adversely affected by the prohibition in their ability to make
noninfringing uses of that particular class of works.
The determination of what classes of works, if any, are subject to
this exception is made by the Librarian of Congress on the
recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who conducts a rulemaking
proceeding to identify any such classes of works. The initial
rulemaking was begun in 1999. After consultation with the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, the Register
made her recommendation to the Librarian of Congress. He accepted the
recommendation and published two classes of works subject to the
exemption on October 27, 2000. Rulemaking proceedings are to be
repeated every three years. The second rulemaking proceeding will
commence in fiscal 2002.
In the DMCA, Congress also asked the Copyright Office to study a
number of important copyright issues. In May 2000, the Register and the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce submitted a report on the effects of
another exemption from the anti-circumvention provision in section
1201(a) of 17 U.S.C. which permits circumvention under certain
circumstances for good faith encryption research.
This year we will complete a report for Congress examining the
effects of the amendments made by Title 1 of the DMCA which are
embodied in chapter 12 of Title 17 and the development of electronic
commerce on the operation of sections 109 and 117 of the copyright law,
and the relationship between existing and emerging technology and the
operation of such sections. In addition, we are working closely with
Congress on copyright issues related to distance education.
International Issues
In the international sphere, the Office continued to advise the
United States Trade Representative and other executive branch agencies
on international copyright matters. These efforts assure that foreign
countries live up to their obligations under the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) to provide adequate and effective intellectual
property protection to U.S. rights holders. The Office also
participated in the legal defense of provisions of the Copyright Act
that were challenged in WTO dispute resolution proceedings under the
TRIPS agreement.
The Copyright Office was a key participant in the World
Intellectual Property Organization's norm setting activities,
especially its effort to conclude a new multilateral treaty to protect
the interests of performers of audiovisual works (e.g., screen and
television actors). We anticipate this effort will continue and that
the Office will participate in new WIPO norm setting activities in the
areas of folklore/traditional knowledge, protection of databases, and
broadcasters' rights in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002.
In early fiscal 2001, the Office's International Copyright
Institute and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held
an International Symposium on the Effect of Technology on Copyright and
Related Rights at the Copyright Office. Officials and copyright experts
from 17 countries participated. The program focused on the effect of
technology on copyright and related rights, as well as on copyright
protection and legislation in the United States. In fiscal 2002, the
Copyright Office anticipates conducting at least one similar
international program.
Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) Matters and
Related Rulemakings
In fiscal 2000, the Office initiated two CARP proceedings to
resolve controversies concerning the distribution of the 1993-1997
cable royalties and the 1995-1998 digital audio recording royalties.
The CARP in the cable proceeding is scheduled to deliver its report in
April. The CARP in the digital audio recording proceeding delivered its
report to the Librarian for adoption. During fiscal 2001, CARPs are
anticipated to determine rates and terms for the statutory license for
digital transmission of performances of sound recordings by means of
webcasting. Issues relating to the digital performance rights for sound
recordings and musical compositions and to digital phonorecord
deliveries of musical compositions will continue to occupy the Office
during fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002.
Licensing Activities
The Licensing Division administers the copyright law's compulsory
licenses and statutory obligations. The Division records licensing
documents and collects royalty fees from cable television operators for
retransmitting television and radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers
for retransmitting ``superstation'' and network signals, and from
importers or manufacturers of digital audio recording equipment who
distribute digital audio recorders and blank digital audio recording
media in the United States. The Division serves as steward and trustee
of the funds paid by the licensees, and invests the funds in interest-
bearing securities of the U.S. Treasury. The funds are disbursed to
copyright owners, or to agents representing them, under the direction
of the Register of Copyrights. During fiscal 2000 the Office collected
$182,756,467 in royalty fees for compulsory licenses and distributed
$367,824,476. The Licensing Division deducts its operating costs from
these royalty fees rather than from appropriated funds.
Registration, Recordation, and Cataloging Operations
In fiscal 2000, the Office processed 588,498 claims, representing
more than 800,000 works, and registered 515,612 of these claims.
Throughput time was and continues to be a concern to the Copyright
Office and the copyright community. A large backlog of copyright claims
continued to exist and processing time for the issuance of registration
certificates remained at approximately six to eight months.
To address this backlog, the Examining Division continued to hire
examiner staff, but examiner retirements and resignations left the
division with a deficit of 11 examiners from its 1993 staffing level.
We have begun an extensive backlog reduction effort in our Examining
Division, which is already resulting in a significant decrease in the
number of claims awaiting examination. This is an Office-wide
imperative, and we are committed to significant progress this year.
In other efforts, the Examining Division concentrated on several
automation initiatives in fiscal 2000, including transferring examining
practices to an online format for easier access, and creating an
automated production verification system, aimed at providing management
with accurate production statistics to aid in workflow strategy and
planning.
In fiscal 2000 the Cataloging Division recorded 18,894 documents
covering hundreds of thousands of titles. The Division implemented a
number of new initiatives to reduce the length of throughput time for
cataloging registrations and recording documents, including a
successful Backlog Reduction Project, which reduced the number of
multiple titles in documents to be entered. Recordation throughput time
improved to 14.4 weeks, well under the target of 24 weeks. The
turnaround time for cataloging registrations was 10.9 weeks, slightly
lower than the target of 12 weeks.
Copyright Education
The provision of information on copyright law and its application
is a principal function of the Copyright Office. The demand for the
information is growing, as the growth of the digital environment
exposes more Americans to copyright issues in the course of their daily
lives.
In fiscal 2000, the Office responded to almost 400,000 information
requests of which nearly 12,000 were via electronic mail. The use of
our Website increased by 67 percent over the prior year. We expect this
demand growth to continue and our efforts in this area to grow as well.
Security Program
The Copyright Office successfully completed several fiscal 2000
scheduled action items in the Library's Security Plan. Among the items
accomplished were: laser engraved ownership marking of compact disc and
video cassette materials; secure transport of high-risk materials; and
item bar code labeling and security tagging of book materials. In
fiscal 2001, the Copyright Office will focus on continued improvements
in physical security, inventory, and preservation controls.
Copyright Office security initiatives planned for fiscal 2002
include incorporating Item Level Tracking and Inventory Control as part
of the Copyright Office reengineering plan, creating in-process records
at the point-of-entry, installing electronic access control, and
installing a closed-circuit video system in the Mail Center.
Copyright No-Year Account and Fee Projection for Fiscal Year 2002
The ``No-Year'' account was established by the Technical Amendments
Act, Public Law 105-80 and holds fees which have been paid by those who
use Copyright Office services. We want to use the funds in the No-Year
account to improve our public services to those who pay these fees. Our
principal use of the No-Year account will be for Business Process
Reengineering implementation and development of our information
technology systems. We need to insure that adequate funds remain in the
account for these critical public service improvements.
The No-Year account balance at the end of the last fiscal year was
$4,289,902. The Copyright Office does not expect to add any funds to
the No-Year account this year. The Office could use up to $2 million
from its No-Year account funds to make up the shortfall caused by the
fiscal 2001 net appropriation reduction.
Status of Future Fee Adjustments
The 1997 Technical Amendments Act gives the Register the authority
to recommend copyright fees based on certain criteria, with Congress
retaining the authority to disapprove a fee increase. In setting fees,
the law directs the Register to conduct a study of costs for the
service provided. Based on the study, and subject to congressional
review, the Register is authorized to fix fees at a level not more than
necessary to recover reasonable costs incurred for services plus a
reasonable adjustment for inflation. Congress specifically mandated
that the fees should also be ``fair and equitable and give due
consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.'' These
objectives include creating a comprehensive public record of copyright
ownership and obtaining works for the use of the Library of Congress
for its collections or its exchange programs.
The Copyright Office went through an elaborate and extensive
process in establishing the present fees, which became effective on
July 1, 1999. This process included hiring two contractors to conduct a
cost study and to provide expertise in the new ``Federal Managerial
Cost Accounting Standards.'' Since raising fees each year would be
costly and disruptive, we indicated that the current fees have a
minimum duration of three years. This decision was widely publicized.
The Office is now in the process of assessing the current fee
schedule to determine if fee adjustments are warranted for fiscal 2002
and expects that the long-term effect of the July 1999 fee increase
will be similar to the experience of the 1991 increase, where claims
dropped, then leveled off for the next three years. Even if the Office
were to implement a fee increase on July 1, 2002, it would not impact
the fiscal 2002 fee receipt projection since the new fees would be in
place for just the last quarter of the fiscal year. Based on past
experience, we would see a high incidence of ``short'' fees submitted
in that quarter. Based on this historical evidence, the fiscal 2002 fee
receipt forecast is the same as fiscal 2001. Based on the receipts
received in the first half of this year, the Office may see a higher
level of receipts for fiscal year 2001 than originally forecasted.
Conclusion
The Copyright Office looks forward to working with Congress in
addressing the significant copyright issues facing the United States
both at home and abroad. Our two major initiatives for fiscal year
2002--planning and developing our information technology systems and
implementing recommendations for reengineering of the Copyright Office
business processes--will be fully funded through our No-Year Account
and existing resources. They will provide us with the technology and
innovation necessary to continue to fulfill the Copyright Office's
mission in the digital information environment.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
I must apologize. I was derelict in that I have not
formally welcomed Senator Durbin to the subcommittee and to his
position as the ranking member. We enjoyed working with Senator
Dorgan and then Senator Feinstein. You have more mobility on
the Democratic side than we do on the Republican side.
I have been here now ever since I have been on the
Appropriations Committee, and looking at the age, health, and
electoral prospects of all of the people senior to me on the
Appropriations Committee, I think I will be here for quite some
time to come.
Senator Durbin, we are delighted to have you as the ranking
member. Again, my apologies for not doing that right up front.
Senator Durbin. It is not necessary. Thank you. I am glad
to join you.
On the Democratic side, we try to be more flexible.
Maybe that is because we are number two and we are trying
harder. But I am glad to be with you, Senator Bennett. I have
enjoyed working with you on the floor and a lot of other
issues, and I am sure we will have a good experience here.
Senator Bennett. Very good.
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE NATIONAL DIGITAL PROGRAM
Dr. Billington, when we did the $99.8 million--I am an old
retailer, and I know there is a difference between $99.8 and
$100 million--there was some concern in the Congress that that
would become the new baseline and that you would just go up
from there. You have now demonstrated that that was, in fact, a
one-time spike and the new baseline is closer to $18 million to
$20 million, something in that neighborhood, for the level
funding for the digital activity that you are doing. At least,
that is what it appears from these numbers.
Is that a correct assumption, that from now on, the
baseline for born digital material, now that you have taken the
one-time step to put things in place, will be in the $20
million area?
Dr. Billington. I am not sure. I would have to do some
mental arithmetic to say what the baseline is. We are asking
for an increase over what we got last year, which was about a
third of what we had requested for digital infrastructure. This
request is $14.6 million.
Of the nearly $100 million that was the one-time
appropriation--we actually have access only to $5 million of
that. The money has been appropriated, but we have access to $5
million for the first stage in developing this national plan.
Senator Bennett. I understand the reason for that is that
the rest of the money is being held until matching private
contributions can be raised.
Dr. Billington. Well, no. The next stage is $20 million to
begin implementing the national plan, and begin developing it
as a distributed responsibility with the many partners that we
will be engaging with. But we will come back to the committee
with the plan which will be generated with the initial $5
million. Then we will begin sharing and implementing
responsibilities with $20 million. Then the $75 million has to
be matched. That is where the match comes in.
In the second phase, we will be trying to work out the
exact procedures with a match and so forth. We began discussing
that in an all-day meeting yesterday, which included members of
the private sector and members of the other major repositories
and other technical interests. So, we are on schedule with
developing the national plan.
DIGITAL FUTURES REQUEST AND BASE FUNDING
What we are asking is the $14.6 million hike, if you like,
in the base to sustain that, and that is to develop both the
digital repository architecture that we will be able to scale
up. That is $2.7 million, and then the basic technology
infrastructure, which is $10.2 million, and then access
services for sustaining the digital outreach, which is $1.7
million. So, it is a 14.6 million hike in the base.
Maybe General Scott can add to that.
General Scott. In answer to the baseline for the budget,
sir, about $27 million would be the baseline.
Senator Bennett. That includes things other than the born
digital, however. Or are you saying that the born digital
increase in the baseline is $27 million?
General Scott. Rather than take this off the top of my
head, I would like to ask our Chief Financial Officer for a
clarification of that number.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
General Scott. John?
Senator Bennett. Please, give the recorder your full name
and title.
Mr. Webster. John Webster, Director of Financial Services.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress approved funding for about $9
million last year for 84 positions and some non-personals, and
that funding sustained forward our national digital library
effort that we had for a pilot effort of 5 years. So, we have
that base of funds for 84 positions and some other non-
personals. Our request of $14.6 million would bring the base to
about $24 million. Plus, we have a request for CRS this year to
add to their base an additional $3.5 million for their
technical capabilities. So, that in total would be
approximately the amount that General Scott stated of about $27
million.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that breakdown.
COMPUTER SECURITY
Dr. Billington, last year the Library's website was
penetrated by some hackers. You will notice I am back on my
hobby horse here, stemming from my Y2K days. But I am very
concerned about critical infrastructure protection. We look at
that not only in the Defense Department and in the banking
community and so on, but I think a national treasure as
important as the Library is one that we should pay attention
to.
Can you share with us information about any penetration or
any damage that may have occurred and what steps you may be
taking to prevent that in the future?
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir. We have taken quite a number of
steps, and there have not been any penetrations like there was
the year before. But we have noticed a number of attempts and
probes. We reassigned four people to work on computer security
to keep up systematically with the growing number of attempts
that continue. There have been a lot of attempts to penetrate,
but no incidents of this kind. There is a whole list of things
that we have done.
Senator Bennett. Excuse me. What is your definition of a
lot? You say there have been a lot of attempts. Is a lot more
than 100, more than 1,000?
Dr. Billington. It is steadily growing, but I am not sure I
can give you an exact numerical reading on it. Don?
Senator Bennett. I do not need an exact number, but are we
in the hundreds or the thousands or the hundreds of thousands?
General Scott. The Library's network, like all Government
networks, experiences ongoing attempts at scans and intrusions,
and we have mechanisms in place to monitor and report these
attempts. The Library is the target of thousands of scans and
probes per month, all of which must be treated as serious until
proven otherwise. Many of these probes exhibit certain patterns
of behavior that call for further investigation by skilled
staff. Ultimately, the Library receives an average of three
intrusion attempts per month that appear, from investigation,
to have been serious attempts to exploit our network.
Senator Bennett. But they have not successfully defaced the
site.
General Scott. No, they have not.
Dr. Billington. We audited all the service systems and
evaluated all the problems. We rebuilt all the servers that
were potentially compromised. Then we reviewed and changed all
accounts and passwords. There have been a lot of steps taken,
and we deployed people to work on this. So, it is a continuing
problem. I can give you a list of measures that we have taken.
I do not know that you want me to read them all off.
Senator Bennett. No. Why do you not just submit them for
the record and we will put them in the hearing report.
[The information follows:]
COMPUTER SECURITY
The Library's network, like all government networks,
experiences ongoing attempts at scans and intrusions, which we
monitor and report to the appropriate authorities. Regarding
technology security, work always remains to be done. No sooner
does the information technology industry advance a new product
for improving network security, than those who would seek to
cause mischief or harm begin working to defeat the new product.
The Library takes very seriously its computer security
responsibilities. As a result of this critical responsibility,
we redeployed resources (about four staff) to keep up with the
growing number of attempts, but that is not enough to ensure
ability to stay ahead of ``hackers''. Currently, networks with
connectivity involving Internet, simply cannot be absolutely
secure. The requested funds for additional staff responds to
this growing need.
In the interim, we have made significant progress
implementing additional technology security systems, policies,
and procedures since the THOMAS incident, as reflected in the
following actions that we have completed: identified
appropriate and additional network and computer security
measures, and prioritized those measures for implementation
based on criticality and resource availability; audited all
Library server systems and evaluated all possible problems;
rebuilt all servers that were potentially compromised; reviewed
and changed all accounts and passwords on any servers for all
users who had access to compromised servers; reviewed and
refined restrictions implemented for public Internet access;
implemented software to isolate publicly available servers to
reduce the potential that an intruder could use one Library
server to compromise another; hardened host-based security
through elimination of unnecessary and/or particularly
vulnerable services; implemented a system to identify and
notify IT Security staff of unauthorized changes to operating
system software or files; implemented a more secure method
(Virtual Private Network, i.e., VPN) for providing Library
staff and contractors with remote access to Library systems;
implemented additional firewall systems; continued development
of the Library's IT Security awareness program; and implemented
an IT Security web site for staff.
Dr. Billington. We also are completing an implementation of
a private network to isolate CRS systems so that the
confidentiality of the CRS services is getting particular
attention within this general effort to keep ahead of this
continuous guerilla warfare.
Senator Bennett. My sense of things would be that people
would not try to hack in for sensitive information because you
are a library that has most of your information out there in
the public domain anyway. But I can see some of the folks with
whose activities I am familiar trying to hack in and deface the
site, that is, leave usually a pornographic image so that some
librarian in Peoria calls up the Library of Congress and it
strikes somebody as being funny that instead of getting
information about the Civil War, she gets a pornographic
message or obscene message. Frankly, the people who do that are
more sophisticated than we like to realize, but I think they
get a bigger kick out of doing that at a Department of Defense
location than the Library of Congress.
Dr. Billington. More attention to this is part of the base
request here that we are presenting to you because we realize
this is a problem. It is not going to go away and it is going
to increase, particularly as we become involved with
partnership relationships as we develop the strategy for
archiving this material.
CENTER FOR RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP
Senator Bennett. There is no formal budget request for the
Center for Russian Leadership Development. In past
appropriations, this has moved out of this committee into
others. Do you anticipate an additional request for that?
Dr. Billington. Last year it was set up as an independent
center in the legislative branch. We are still carrying the
administrative support costs for the center in order to enable
it to concentrate all its funds, as much as possible, directly
on bringing over Russian leaders--it has brought nearly 4,000
young Russians, and they have been from every political
district of Russia. The program has been an extraordinary
success.
The independent board has not yet been fully constituted.
We forwarded a fiscal year 2002 budget proposal as a courtesy
to the committee, but it is not formally part of our budget. It
has been mandated by the Congress to have a separate identity
with a board and so forth. The Senate appointees are Senator
Frist and Senator Levin, and we hope to have the full board
appointed soon. Some four trustees are appointed by the
leadership of the Senate and the House. I have four
appointments. I also serve on the board. So, at the time when
the board is appointed, we will schedule, hopefully, a late
spring/early summer meeting, and we will approve the plans.
But we have forwarded the $10 million fiscal year 2002
budget request, which was identical to the preceding year, on
behalf of the Center's board, and they will formally submit it
once the board is fully constituted and has met.
Senator Bennett. I just want, again, the record to show
that I am very much in support of this. My contact with
Russians indicates that this has produced a very significant
benefit.
Dr. Billington. It has been really quite amazing, Mr.
Chairman. The average age is about 38 years old, and they come
from 88 of the 89 regions--only in Chechnya were we unable to
get anyone. They have been in almost all States and the
District of Columbia. There has been a lot of congressional
participation. We have had more than 100 members of the Duma.
We have had families, in excess of what we need, volunteering
to take them in. We have a wonderful cooperation from all kinds
of groups. Utah was a particularly stunning success.
Last year emphasized the rule of law. There were 103 judges
from different parts of Russia among the 1,605 people that came
over, about a quarter of the Duma, and members of the upper
house, the Federative Council.
Most of those people had never been to this country before,
and to see how democracy and a market economy functions at the
local level and how our nongovernmental organizations do so
much of the work was all just a great revelation.
I think it is the biggest program of this kind since the
Marshall Plan, and the Congress really deserves enormous credit
for having launched it. I think Geraldine Otremba, who runs it
for us, has done a terrific job.
But it is dependent on the volunteer activity of a great
many groups, church groups. Rotary has been particularly
strong. All kinds of other people, who have been doing this as
individual Americans, have been reinforced and buttressed in
their work of giving hospitality and a kind of brief but very
intensive experience to a country that is struggling with a
democracy. So, I really do commend the Congress for creating
and sustaining this.
It has been very inspiring to meet these people and hear
the things they say. They have had 10 alumni meetings all over
Russia, so they are even forming a kind of alumni network,
which means that this is a continuing thing. The Russians hope
to bring Americans back, and I think it has been a wonderful
thing, in a sometimes difficult relationship, to have this kind
of contact with the next generation.
The average age is 38. Thirty-eight percent of them are
women. That is something totally new in Russia. It is a whole
new generation, a whole new perspective, and for the first
time, I think something is happening from the bottom up and
from the periphery, in a country where everything always
happened from the top down. So, you have been encouraging, in a
very cost effective manner, the future development of that
country.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
AMERICAN FOLKLIFE CENTER
I would like to add two letters to the record from our
colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Tim Johnson.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
[The letters follow:]
United States Senate,
Office of the Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2001.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Dick: I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the
budget request of the Library of Congress American Folklife Center
(AFC).
The collections of the American Folklife Center are the largest and
most comprehensive ethnographic field collections in the world. The
Center is responsible for much of the nation's most unique and valuable
audio recordings, including the very first wax cylinder recordings of
Native Americans (dating from 1890), the only sound recordings of ex-
slaves telling their life stories, and the recordings of folk cultural
icons such as Woody Guthrie, LeadBelly, and Jelly Roll Morton. The
Center has served my own state of South Dakota by preserving the songs
and stories of the Sioux, as well as the pioneering European settlers.
More importantly, copies of these recordings have been returned to the
state of South Dakota and the Sioux tribe, and they exist as a sound
portrait and oral record of South Dakota history.
The Center is asking for a very modest, and long overdue, increase
of $1 million to preserve and make accessible to the public the
priceless sound recordings in their collections. This is essential to
fulfill their congressional mandate to ``preserve and present American
folklife.'' We must act now, or these recordings may be silenced
forever.
In addition, Congress approved a new law last year that directs the
AFC to ``collect and preserve the oral histories of America's war
veterans.'' This law, which allows the Library to lead in documenting
and presenting these life stories for future generations, did not
receive an appropriation. The Veterans' Oral History Program is one of
the most exciting cultural heritage initiatives to come from Congress
in recent years. The Center is asking for $250,000 to implement this
program, which is part of its request for a $1 million increase.
I urge you to join me in supporting the budget request of the
American Folklife Center. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Tom Daschle,
United States Senate.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2001.
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett,
The Honorable Richard Durbin,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Bennett and Senator Durbin: I respectfully request
inclusion of the following project in the Subcommittee's appropriations
for the Legislative Branch.
Folklife Center of the Library of Congress ($2 million)
I would urge the Subcommittee to appropriate funds for the Folklife
Center at $2 million. The current proposal is only $1 million.
Unfortunately, this program has not received a funding increase in over
twenty years. These additional funds would be used to process,
preserve, and archive historic folklife materials, including the
records of the Veterans Oral History Project.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this important
request. I look forward to working with you during deliberation on
appropriations language.
Sincerely,
Tim Johnson,
United States Senate.
Senator Durbin. These letters are in support of the
American Folklife Center, as well as the veterans oral history
project. They speak for themselves, and I think that those are
two good undertakings by the Library of Congress.
Senator Voinovich and I in the Government Affairs Committee
have had a series of hearings about the problems across the
Federal Government in attracting and retaining the very best
people. It appears that we are in constant competition with the
private sector, which is no surprise, and that we have lost
that competition many times. We have failed to attract the best
and brightest to public service and may ultimately pay a price
for that.
FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
One of the things which we have discussed, in addition to
identifying critical needs in personnel skills, is also trying
to identify those things which would attract and keep good
people at the Library of Congress and many other Federal
agencies. One element, of course, is student loans. Young
people come out of college with $50,000 or $100,000 in student
loans and working for the Federal Government may not be as
appealing as something that pays a little more.
I wonder if you have run into this problem, as you talk
about the new technical responsibilities at the Library of
Congress, whether you have been able to find the people that
you need, whether you need to have additional tools to reach
out and recruit people or to retain them, and whether the
forgiveness of student loans or the deferral of student loans
has been something that you either considered or budgeted for.
Dr. Billington. Well, Senator, I am really glad you brought
that up because I do not think any administrative problem has
been of as much concern to us as this need. We have a very
talented staff, but particularly as we enter this new high tech
area, we are not competitive with the private sector. There is
a tremendous need to increase both the salary levels and the
benefits. That is why the first thing I began with in my
testimony is the mandatory pay level increases, how important
they are.
We have a special problem at the Library because we have a
succession generation problem. The Library had a big increase
in employees in the early post-war period and a lot of those
people are nearing retirement age, more than half of our staff.
So, succession planning has been tremendously important. It is
particularly important for an institution like this because
many of our employees have unique, one of a kind experience.
The average service in the Library is quite long, and when you
get a lot of people retiring at once or nearing retirement age,
you have to have a rational succession plan. CRS has been
working on this very effectively. The Library Services are
doing the same thing.
There are, of course, these other benefits. Congress was
very helpful, when I requested it, picking up a site so that we
could use that for a day-care center. There are a lot of very
important things that are of concern to the staff, in addition
to the straight monetary level, such as enabling people to get
on-the-job training in these very unique kinds of jobs. This is
a one-of-a-kind institution, and it is important to have a
rational succession plan so that the institutional knowledge of
individual employees, what is in their heads, gets passed on to
the next generation.
As far as this particular issue is concerned, we have been
evaluating this new program on the student loans, and we have
asked our payroll service provider, the National Finance
Center, to add this capability to their system. If we can
implement it in a cost effective manner, we would like to use
loan repayments as another tool to attract and retain key
employees. So, we commend you for this initiative.
I would just say very emphatically that the business of
knowledge navigation and the often invisible services that the
Library of Congress renders to the entire library and
information community is of such importance, that I cannot
think of anything more important than to lift the levels of
remuneration to a slightly higher level for our skilled
personnel.
Beyond succession planning, we really do not have a direct
training budget. We have an internal university. We have a lot
of other things that we are doing because of the skill levels
that are needed. More and more you have to have both
substantive knowledge and technical capability to perform in
the new digital environment. We are in a real change mode, and
when you are in a change mode, you require not only the ability
to hire at a higher salary level, but also to train and retrain
people. We have enormously talented people that need
retraining.
So, I really commend you and the other Senators for
following this initiative because the Library of Congress does
so many unique things.
STAFF QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you, Dr. Billington, if I may.
What efforts do you make among your 4,000 staff employees to
gauge quality of life and quality of work elements that are
important to them that would be an element in retention and
even recruitment?
Dr. Billington. I think I will let General Scott answer
that.
General Scott. Senator Durbin, we try very hard to balance
how much we can help our employees to improve the quality of
life. We participate in the Metro transit subsidy program and
are currently working on a telecommuting pilot. We offer
classes for people who are stuck in dead-end jobs so that they,
too, have an opportunity to improve themselves and move up.
With 70 percent of our budget devoted to personnel, this is
a very difficult balancing act, but we continue to push as hard
as we can to add more to the Metro subsidy, to encourage----
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. Metro subsidy I am not familiar
with.
General Scott. That is the Government paying part of the
costs of an employee's public transportation. That is a big
issue because parking on Capitol Hill is at such a premium. We
participate in the transit program as much as we can.
Dr. Billington. We have put a lot into ergonomics because
part of the transition into the new digital environment means a
lot of people are working in unnatural positions and require
some different kinds of furniture. We discuss these matters
with the unions and with others. Certainly, quality of life is
a very important component of what we are trying to do.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
As I am on the subcommittee a little longer, I will come to
understand the agency a little more and exactly what you do.
But I am always impressed with the Library of Congress and the
work you do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Mulhollan, we would normally go to you, but Congressman
Thomas has to manage a bill on the floor at 11 o'clock and he
is in the Leader's office and is on his way down. If I could,
could I get you to hold while we listen to Congressman Thomas?
Mr. Mulhollan. I am most pleased to do so.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
CAPITOL POLICE MERGER
Dr. Billington, thank you very much. We will have some
further discussions with you about some other issues. Dr.
Billington and I have had a conversation about the Capitol
Police, and as that moves forward, he has some suggestions that
I think are very valid as to what should be done with respect
to the skills required by the Library police.
We on this subcommittee pushed last year for a
consolidation of the police forces on Capitol Hill. We have the
Capitol Police. We have the Government Printing Office Police.
We have the Library of Congress Police, and we have the Supreme
Court Police. There seems to be a lot of overlapping
jurisdiction here.
But Dr. Billington, while generally in support of the idea
of consolidation into a single police force, has raised some
appropriate questions about special training and special
requirements and his needs as the Librarian to have some degree
of control and input over the people who support him. As we get
farther down the road with that, if we decide to go forward
with that, we will be in touch with you. We ran afoul of the
House last year.
We should recognize for the record that Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights and Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of the
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped are also here.
So, with that, Congressman Thomas is on his way down. Thank
you. We will dismiss you, and as soon as Congressman Thomas
appears, we will go back to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY LINDY L. PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF
Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Chairman Bill Thomas.
We welcome you. He is the chairman of the Joint Committee on
Taxation in the 107th Congress.
The committee has requested $6.7 million for fiscal year
2002, which is a 4.9 percent increase. I understand the
increase is solely attributable to increased personnel costs
due to COLA's, and there is a 1 percent meritorious pay
increase included.
Chairman Thomas, we are honored to have you here. We look
forward to your testimony. We appreciate, given the pressures
that you are under with all the other things you have to do,
that you could take some time for us.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
unanimous consent that my written statement be made a part of
the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William M. Thomas
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my honor to
appear before the Subcommittee today to present the written testimony
of the Joint Committee on Taxation (``Joint Committee'') with respect
to the fiscal year 2002 appropriation request for the Joint Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the request of the Joint Committee represents the
minimum amount necessary to fund the operations of the Joint Committee
during fiscal year 2002. The following summarizes the main components
to the Joint Committee's request.
--The Joint Committee is requesting an increase of $317,000 for
fiscal year 2002 to cover cost-of-living adjustments and a 1-
percent meritorious increase in personnel compensation
expenses.
--The Joint Committee is requesting $200,000 for an additional study
on the simplification of the Federal tax system. Under section
8022(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, subject to
amounts being specifically appropriated for this purpose, the
Joint Committee is required to report at least once each
Congress to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House
Committee on Ways and Means on the overall state of the Federal
tax system, together with recommendations with respect to
possible simplification proposals and other matters relating to
the administration of the Federal tax system. The Joint
Committee released its first report on this subject in late
April and copies of the report have been made available to the
members of the Subcommittee.
--The Joint Committee is requesting no increase in nonpersonnel
expenses for fiscal year 2002.
The following discussion provides (1) detailed information on the
Joint Committee appropriation request for fiscal year 2002, (2) a
review of Joint Committee operations during calendar year 2000, and (3)
a description of the anticipated workload of the Joint Committee during
calendar year 2001.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATION REQUEST
The following table summarizes the Joint Committee's appropriation
request for fiscal year 2002 relative to the fiscal year 2001
appropriation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Costs:
Personnel compensation.............. $5,856,000 $6,173,000
Transit benefits.................... 2,000 2,000
Nonpersonnel Funding:
Travel.............................. 12,000 12,000
Rent, communications, and utilities. 30,000 30,000
Printing............................ 500 500
Other services...................... 98,500 98,500
Supplies and materials.............. 154,000 154,000
Equipment........................... 263,000 263,000
Funding for Joint Committee .............. 200,000
simplification study...................
Total fiscal year 2001 appropriation \1\ 6,416,000 ..............
Total fiscal year 2002 request...... .............. 6,933,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After reduction for rescission amount of $14,000.
DETAILS OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Personnel expenses
Details of appropriation request
The $317,000 increase in the Joint Committee's appropriation for
fiscal year 2002 relative to fiscal year 2001 is attributable solely to
increased personnel costs. This increase is attributable to the
following amounts, which have been calculated pursuant to information
supplied by the House Office of Finance:
Fiscal year 2001 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
Committee requests $54,000 to fund 3 months of the 3.7 percent cost-of-
living adjustment for calendar year 2001.
Fiscal year 2002 cost-of-living adjustment annualized.--The Joint
Committee requests $204,000 to fund 9 months of the projected cost-of-
living adjustment for calendar year 2002.
Meritorious increases.--The Joint Committee requests $59,000 for 1-
percent meritorious increases for fiscal year 2002.
Need for adequate funding for personnel expenses
The funding of adequate amounts for personnel costs is critical to
the continued ability of the Joint Committee to attract and retain
qualified professional staff.
Joint Committee professional staff include tax lawyers, certified
public accountants, Ph.D. economists, and highly trained computer
specialists. In order to provide the highly technical services required
by Joint Committee lawyers and certified public accountants, the Joint
Committee generally requires such professionals to have a minimum of 3-
4 years of private practice or comparable experience. It is becoming
increasingly difficult to attract such individuals to public service
and retain them for significant periods given the disparity between
private sector salaries and the salaries the Joint Committee can pay.
A similar problem arises with Joint Committee staff economists. The
Joint Committee typically hires economists who are just completing
their Ph.D. programs. It generally takes an entry-level economist 2-3
years of training to become proficient in the unique skills required to
prepare revenue estimates for proposed tax legislation. Once this
training period is complete, these economists have highly marketable
skills and the accounting firms that attempt to duplicate the work of
the Joint Committee offer significant salary increases to lure Joint
Committee economists to the private sector.
At this time, the Joint Committee is actively recruiting to fill
open staff positions that have resulted from staff attrition during the
last Congress. However, unless adequate amounts are funded for
personnel expenses for fiscal year 2002, the Joint Committee will not
be able to fill all of its open positions. Failure to fill open
positions may result in a reduced level of service to the Congress.
Nonpersonnel expenses
In general
The Joint Committee is requesting no increase in nonpersonnel
expenses for fiscal year 2002.
Travel
The Joint Committee requests $12,000 for travel during fiscal year
2002. This amount will be used to pay travel expenses of (1) job
applicants, (2) Joint Committee consultants, and (3) Joint Committee
staff attending educational conferences.
Rent, communications, and utilities
The Joint Committee requests $30,000 for fiscal year 2002 to cover
anticipated expenses for communications and utilities.
Printing
The Joint Committee requests the nominal amount of $500 to cover
anticipated printing expenses for fiscal year 2002.
Other services
The Joint Committee requests $98,500 for other services for fiscal
year 2002. This category represents a substantial portion of the Joint
Committee's nonpersonnel expenses. The Joint Committee utilizes
consultants and other service providers to perform functions that the
Joint Committee staff does not have the time or expertise to perform.
For example, the needs of the Members for immediate responses to
requests for revenue estimates and the substantial volume of requests
that the Joint Committee staff receives each year places limitations on
the ability of the Joint Committee staff to perform certain work, such
as the manipulation of new data sets, that improves the quality of
Joint Committee revenue estimates. The Joint Committee staff has found
that it is more cost efficient to contract some of this work to outside
consultants.
Supplies and materials
The Joint Committee requests $154,000 for supplies and materials
for fiscal year 2002. The largest expense in this category is a
projected $120,000 for subscriptions and publications to keep up with
current developments in tax law.
Equipment
The Joint Committee requests $263,000 for equipment for fiscal year
2002. The Joint Committee staff anticipates expending approximately
$130,000 for replacement of network servers and software and storage
upgrades for the Joint Committee's electronic tracking system. The
Joint Committee tracking system is a software program that became fully
operational in 2000. This software package enables the paperless
processing and tracking of all Member requests and has resulted in
significant time and cost savings. In addition, Xerox maintenance and
usage costs are projected to be approximately $50,000 and hardware and
software maintenance are projected to be approximately $80,000.
Supplemental request to fund additional study on tax simplification
The Joint Committee is requesting that the Subcommittee appropriate
$200,000 for an additional study for fiscal year 2002. Under section
8022(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, subject to amounts
being specifically appropriated for this purpose, the Joint Committee
is required to report at least once each Congress to the Senate
Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means on the
overall state of the Federal tax system, together with recommendations
with respect to possible simplification proposals and other matters
relating to the administration of the Federal tax system. The Joint
Committee submitted its first simplification report in late April 2001.
REVIEW OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OPERATIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR
2000
In general
Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the
Joint Committee staff for calendar year 2000. The attachments include
the following information:
(1) Attachment A--information relating to the legislative tax
reports (Committee and Conference Reports) drafted by Joint Committee
staff for the revenue-related legislation considered by the House
Committee on Ways and Means and/or the Senate Committee on Finance;
(2) Attachment B--a listing of all documents published by the Joint
Committee staff during calendar year 2000;
(3) Attachment C--a graph showing the number of written requests
received by the Joint Committee from Members of Congress for revenue
estimates and other assistance during the period 1986 through 2000;
(4) Attachment D--a table providing information on revenue estimate
requests and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of
requesting Members for 2000; and
(5) Attachment E--information relating to the Joint Committee
staff's statutorily mandated duty to review large income tax refunds.
Tax legislative reports
The Joint Committee staff prepared 21 Committee and Conference
reports relating to tax legislation considered by the Congress in 2000
and provided assistance on one trade Committee report. A complete
listing of these reports is included at Attachment A.
Joint Committee staff publications
In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
Joint Committee staff published 117 documents during 2000, including
pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
markups and conference action (see Attachment B). All Joint Committee
staff publications are accessible from the Joint Committee's web page
(http://www.house.gov/jct).
Revenue estimates and related analysis
Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee
staff's revenue estimating activity. Attachment C shows the number of
revenue estimate requests received by the Joint Committee staff each
year from 1986 through 2000.
Attachment D also shows information on revenue estimate requests
and Joint Committee staff responses to various categories of Members
requesting revenue estimates for 2000. The Joint Committee staff is
cognizant of its responsibility to provide service to all Members who
request it and monitors its response rates to ensure that the Joint
Committee staff responds to non-tax-writing Committee Members as well
as the tax-writing Committee Members.
The Joint Committee staff's new tracking system has transitioned
the Joint Committee staff from a paper-based and time consuming system
for processing Member requests to a paperless system that allows the
Joint Committee staff to process and monitor all Member requests
electronically from the time a request is received until the final
response is delivered to the requesting Member. This upgraded system
has significantly improved the efficiency of the Joint Committee staff
in responding to Member requests. The time required to process reviews
of draft Joint Committee responses to Member requests has been reduced
from several days to several hours.
In addition, this upgraded database system maintains a complete
electronic record of each request received from a Member of Congress
and enables real time tracking of the status of each such request.
The Joint Committee staff continues its work on an ongoing project
to develop a model to measure the short- and long-term effects on the
economy of major tax legislation. The major challenge of this work is
developing a computer model that can analyze several variations of a
tax proposal without major reprogramming. Without this capability, a
macroeconomic model will not produce reliable estimates when the
elements of major tax proposals change during the legislative process.
Later in 2001, the Joint Committee staff expects to be able to begin
producing comparative analysis of the long-term growth effects of major
tax proposals and to provide macroeconomic information with revenue
estimates for major tax proposals.
JCT staff studies, investigations, and refund review
Studies and investigations
In 2000, the Joint Committee staff published an 899-page study of
the present-law taxpayer confidentiality and disclosure provisions as
required by section 3802 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998. This three-volume study included legislative recommendations of
the Joint Committee staff with respect to the general disclosure
provisions of present law and with respect to disclosure provisions
relating to tax-exempt organizations.
During 2000, the Joint Committee staff completed its investigation
of whether the IRS selection of tax-exempt organizations (described in
Code sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)) and individuals associated with
such organizations for audit has been politically motivated, including
an analysis of the selection of such tax-exempt organizations for audit
for reasons related to their alleged political or lobbying activities.
The Joint Committee's 163-page report on this investigation was
released in March 2000. This investigation, which was requested by the
Chairman, Vice Chairman, and two ranking Members of the Joint
Committee, represents an important exercise of the Joint Committee's
statutorily prescribed duty of oversight of the administration of the
Federal tax system.
During 2000, the Joint Committee staff organized the annual joint
hearing on the strategic plans and budget of the IRS, as mandated by
the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. This annual joint hearing
of the six Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the IRS will
continue through 2003.
The Joint Committee staff continued in 2000 a study of the overall
state of the Federal tax system, as mandated by the IRS Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998. The Joint Committee staff released its report
on this study in late April of this year. As part of the study, the
Joint Committee staff has convened two advisory groups, one consisting
of individuals who formerly served in major tax policy positions in the
Executive or Legislative branch and the other consisting of noted tax
academics. The Joint Committee staff conducted several meetings with
these advisors to elicit input on possible simplification
recommendations. The Joint Committee staff reviewed the simplification
recommendations that have been made by professional organizations, such
as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Business
Roundtable, the Tax Executives Institute, and the Tax Section of the
American Bar Association. The General Accounting Office and the
Congressional Research Service were also asked to perform work in
connection with this study.
Refund review
An ongoing, statutorily mandated function of the Joint Committee is
the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate and gift
tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension plans, or
real estate investment trusts in excess of $1 million. The Joint
Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and makes
comments or recommendations with respect to the proposed refund case to
the IRS. Attachment E contains information concerning the Joint
Committee staff refund review work. During fiscal year 2000, the Joint
Committee refund staff reviewed 664 cases involving $5.55 billion in
proposed refunds and 64 large deficiency cases. The Joint Committee
staff raised concerns in 47 refund cases. Errors identified by the
Joint Committee staff produced a net reduction in refunds of $11.7
million in fiscal year 2000. The average annual reduction in refunds
for the last 10 years is $11.9 million.
In the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, the Joint
Committee refund review threshold was increased to $2 million,
effective on December 22, 2000. The Joint Committee requested this
increase because the number of refunds in excess of $1 million was
increasing and the Joint Committee felt that a refund review threshold
of $2 million would permit adequate oversight of the handling of large
refund cases by the IRS. In addition, the increase in the threshold
allowed the Joint Committee to avoid an increase in staffing of the
refund review function.
ANTICIPATED WORKLOAD OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2001
During 2001, the Joint Committee expects an increase in workload
over 2000. The Joint Committee staff will provide support to the
Congress and the tax-writing committees as broad-based and other tax
relief proposals, including President Bush's tax cut plan, are
considered by the Congress. In addition, the Joint Committee
anticipates that the Congress will consider legislation to extend
various expiring tax provisions and to reform the laws relating to IRAs
and employer-provided retirement plans. As part of the legislative
process, the Joint Committee staff will (1) develop legislative
proposals, (2) assist in the drafting of such proposals, (3) provide
revenue estimates for numerous legislative options and amendments, (4)
prepare markup documents and committee reports, and (5) provide
additional economic analysis to the Members.
In addition to this anticipated legislative activity, the Joint
Committee staff will continue to satisfy its responsibilities under the
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.
Thus, the Joint Committee staff will: (1) prepare a complexity
analysis for inclusion in Committee and Conference reports for all
revenue legislation; (2) organize the joint review in 2001 relating to
the operations of the Internal Revenue Service and prepare materials
for the use of the Congress in connection with the review; and (3)
complete work on a comprehensive study relating to the complexity of
the present-law tax system.
The Joint Committee will continue to satisfy its statutory
responsibility to review large refund cases submitted to it by the IRS.
The Joint Committee staff expects to assist the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations with respect to its work to review proposed tax
treaties.
The Joint Committee staff anticipates that requests from Members
for revenue estimates for proposed legislation will increase in 2001,
relative to 2000. In addition, the Joint Committee staff will continue
to work to develop a macroeconomic model that will provide information
on the possible effects on the economy of major tax legislation.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, the Joint Committee has a reputation for providing
timely, high quality service to the Congress with respect to proposed
revenue legislation. However, the highly technical nature of the Joint
Committee's work makes it imperative that the Joint Committee be able
to hire and retain qualified tax professionals. If the Joint
Committee's appropriation request is not approved, the Joint Committee
will not have adequate resources to fill all of its open staff
positions.
I respectfully request that the Subcommittee approve the
appropriation request of the Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal
year 2002. This request is the minimum amount necessary to fund the
operations of the Joint Committee during fiscal year 2002. If the
requested funding is not provided, difficult decisions will be required
concerning what staff activities can and should be funded.
Attachment A.--Committee and Conference Reports Prepared by Joint
Committee on Taxation Staff During Calendar Year 2000
House Committee on Ways and Means
106-493--Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act Of 2000; February 7, 2000.
106-546--Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 2000; March
24, 2000.
106-566--Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2000; April 10, 2000.
106-631--Repeal Of Federal Communications Excise Tax; May 22, 2000.
106-651--Death Tax Elimination Act Of 2000; June 6, 2000.
106-702--Full And Fair Political Activity Disclosure Act Of 2000;
June 27, 2000.
106-753--Comprehensive Retirement Security And Pension Reform Act
of 2000; July 17, 2000.
106-777--Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of
2000; July 26, 2000.
106-780--Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2000; July 24,
2000.
106-845--FSC Repeal And Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of
2000; September 13, 2000.
106-862--Debt Relief Lock-box Reconciliation Act For Fiscal Year
2001; September 18, 2000.
Senate Committee on Finance
106-253--Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000; April 4, 2000.
106-328--Repeal of Federal Communications Excise Tax; July 5, 2000.
106-329--Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000; July 5,
2000.
106-411--Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000; September 13,
2000.
106-416--FSC Repeal And Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of
2000; September 20, 2000.
106-475--Railroad Retirement And Survivors' Improvement Act of
2000; October 3, 2000.
Conference Committee Reports
106-606--Trade And Development Act Of 2000; May 4, 2000.
106-765--Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000; July 19,
2000.
106-1004--Enactment Of Certain Small Business, Health, Tax, And
Minimum Wage Provisions; October 26, 2000.
106-1033--Community Renewal Tax Relief Act Of 2000; December 15,
2000.
Attachment B.--Publications Prepared by Joint Committee on Taxation
Staff During Calendar Year 2000
JCS-00 DOCUMENTS
JCS-1-00--Study Of Present-Law Taxpayer Confidentiality And
Disclosure Provisions As Required By Section 3802 Of The Internal
Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998--Volume I: Study
Of General Disclosure Provisions; Volume II: Study Of Disclosure
Provisions Relating To Tax-Exempt Organizations; Volume III: Public
Comments And General Accounting Office Reports. January 28, 2000
JCS-2-00--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
President's Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Proposal. March 6, 2000
JCS-3-00--Report Of Investigation Of Allegations Relating To
Internal Revenue Service Handling Of Tax-Exempt Organization Matters.
March 2000
JCS-4-00--Joint Review Of The Strategic Plans And Budget Of The
Internal Revenue Service, 2000. May 3, 2000
JCX-00 DOCUMENTS
JCX-1-00--Background Information Relating To The Joint Committee On
Taxation. January 12, 2000
JCX-2-00--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On Taxation
Concerning Tax Penalties And Interest Before The Subcommittee On
Oversight Of The House Committee On Ways And Means. January 27, 2000
JCX-3-00--Description Of The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act Of
2000. January 31, 2000
JCX-4-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of The
``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By
The Committee On Ways And Means Of February 2, 2000. January 31, 2000
JCX-5-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of The
``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By
The Committee On Ways And Means Of February 2, 2000. February 1, 2000
JCX-6-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute
To The Provisions Of H.R. 6. February 1, 2000
JCX-7-00--Distributional Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In The
Nature Of A Substitute Relating To The ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Act Of 2000''. February 1, 2000
JCX-8-00--Comparison Of Federal Tax Liabilities Under Present Law
And Under The Chairman Modified Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute
Relating To The ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act Of 2000'' For
Hypothetical Married Couples. February 2, 2000
JCX-9-00--Description Of Additional Modifications To The Chairman's
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 6.
February 2, 2000
JCX-10-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Modified
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To The ``Marriage Tax Penalty
Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
Means On February 2, 2000. February 2, 2000
JCX-11-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Modified
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To The ``Marriage Tax Penalty
Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
Means On February 2, 2000. February 2, 2000
JCX-12-00--Distributional Effects Of The Chairman's Modified
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Relating To The ``Marriage Tax
Penalty Relief Act Of 2000''. February 2, 2000
JCX-13-00--Summary Of Tax Provisions Contained In The President's
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Proposal. February 7, 2000
JCX-14-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
Contained In H.R. 833, The ``Bankruptcy Reform Act Of 2000, As Passed
By The Senate. February 24, 2000
JCX-15-00--Overview Of Issues Relating To The Modification Of The
Installment Sales Rules By The Ticket To Work And Work Incentives
Improvement Act Of 1999 Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Subcommittee
on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 29,
2000. February 28, 2000
JCX-16-00--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions In H.R. 434 As Passed
By The House And The Senate. March 1, 2000
JCX-17-00R--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of The
Revenue Provisions Contained in H.R. 434, As Passed By The House And
The Senate. March 1, 2000
JCX-18-00--Updated Comparison Of Revenue Provisions In H.R. 2990 As
Passed By The House And The Senate. March 2, 2000
JCX-19-00R--Comparison Of The Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R.
2990 As Passed By The House And The Senate. March 2, 2000
JCX-20-00--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
Contained in The President's Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Proposal. March 6,
2000
JCX-21-00--Summary Of Provisions Contained In The Small Business
Tax Fairness Act Of 2000. March 6, 2000
JCX-22-00--Comparison Of Joint Committee Staff And Treasury
Recommendations Relating To Interest And Penalty Provisions Of The
Internal Revenue Code Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on March 8, 2000. March 7, 2000
JCX-23-00--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Concerning Interest And Penalties And Corporate Tax Shelters
Before The Senate Committee On Finance. March 7, 2000
JCX-24-00--Appendix To JCX-23-00--NIPA And Federal Income Tax
Receipts Data. March 7, 2000
JCX-25-00--Comparison Of Recommendations Relating To Corporate Tax
Shelters Made By The Department Of Treasury And The Staff Of The Joint
Committee On Taxation Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Finance on March 8, 2000. March 7, 2000
JCX-26-00--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 3832, The ``Small
Business Tax Fairness Act Of 2000'' (5-year estimates). March 8, 2000
JCX-27-00--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 3832, The ``Small
Business Tax Fairness Act Of 2000'' (10-year estimates). March 10, 2000
JCX-28-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 1134, The ``Affordable
Education Act Of 2000,'' As Passed By The Senate. March 14, 2000
JCX-29-00--Present Law And Proposals Relating To Tax Incentives For
Economically Distressed Areas Scheduled for a Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on
March 21, 2000. March 20, 2000
JCX-30-00--Description Of H.R. 7 (The ``Education Savings And
School Excellence Act Of 1999'') Scheduled for Markup by the House
Committee on Ways and Means. March 21, 2000
JCX-31-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 7. March 22, 2000
JCX-32-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 7, The ``Education Savings And
School Excellence Act Of 1999'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee
On Ways And Means On March 22, 2000 (10-year numbers). March 22, 2000
JCX-33-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 7, The ``Education Savings And
School Excellence Act Of 1999'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee
On Ways And Means On March 22, 2000 (5-year numbers). March 22, 2000
JCX-34-00--Description Of A Chairman's Mark Of The Marriage Tax
Relief Act Of 2000 Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on
Finance on March 30, 2000. March 28, 2000
JCX-35-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Mark Of The
``Marriage Tax Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The
Committee On Finance On March 30, 2000. March 28, 2000
JCX-36-00--Comparison Of Federal Tax Liabilities Under Present Law
And Under The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Marriage Tax Relief Act Of
2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On March 30,
2000, For Hypothetical Married Couples. March 28, 2000
JCX-37-00--Distributional Effects Of A Chairman's Mark Of The
``Marriage Tax Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The
Committee On Finance On March 30, 2000. March 28, 2000
JCX-38-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Modification To The
Chairman's Mark Of The ``Marriage Tax Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled
For Markup By The Committee On Finance On March 30, 2000. March 30,
2000
JCX-39-00--Description Of Modification To The Chairman's Mark.
March 30, 2000
JCX-40-00--Distributional Effects Of A Modification To The
Chairman's Mark Of The ``Marriage Tax Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled
For Markup By The Committee On Finance On March 30, 2000. March 30,
2000
JCX-41-00--Comparison Of Federal Tax Liabilities Under Present Law
And Under A Modification To The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Marriage Tax
Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance
On March 30, 2000, For Hypothetical Married Couples. March 30, 2000
JCX-42-00--Description Of The ``Taxpayer Bill Of Rights 2000''
Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on April
5, 2000. April 3, 2000
JCX-43-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To The Provisions Of The ``Taxpayer Bill Of Rights 2000''.
April 4, 2000
JCX-44-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To The ``Taxpayer Bill Of Rights 2000,''
Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On April 5,
2000. April 4, 2000
JCX-45-00--Distribution Of Certain Tax Liabilities By Income Class
For Calendar Year 2000. April 11, 2000
JCX-46-00--Report Of The Joint Committee On Taxation Relating To
The Internal Revenue Service As Required By The IRS Reform And
Restructuring Act Of 1999. April 28, 2000
JCX-47-00--Description Of H.R. 3916 (Repeal Of The Federal
Communications Excise Tax). May 15, 2000
JCX-48-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 3916. May 16, 2000
JCX-49-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3916 For Markup By The Committee On
Ways And Means On May 17, 2000. May 16, 2000
JCX-50-00--Distributional Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3916 (Repeal Of The Federal
Communications Excise Tax) For Markup By The Committee On Ways And
Means On May 17, 2000. May 16, 2000
JCX-51-00--Description Of ``The Death Tax Elimination Act Of 2000''
(H.R. 8) Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means
on May 25, 2000. May 23, 2000
JCX-52-00--Description Of Chairman Archer's Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute To ``The Death Tax Elimination Act Of 2000'' (H.R. 8)
Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on May
25, 2000. May 23, 2000
JCX-53-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To The ``Death Tax Elimination Act Of
2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On May
25, 2000. May 25, 2000
JCX-54-00--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1999. May
26, 2000
JCX-55-00--Description Of The ``Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act
Of 2000'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means
on June 8, 2000. June 6, 2000
JCX-56-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To The Provisions Of The ``Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act
Of 2000''. June 8, 2000
JCX-57-00--Description Of H.R. 3916 (Repeal Of The Federal
Communications Excise Tax). June 12, 2000
JCX-58-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3916 For Markup By The Committee On
Finance On June 14, 2000. June 13, 2000
JCX-59-00--Overview Of Present-Law Rules And Description Of Certain
Proposals Relating To Disclosure Of Information By Tax-Exempt
Organizations With Respect To Political Activities Scheduled for a
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on
Ways and Means. June 19, 2000
JCX-60-00--Testimony Of The Staff Of The Joint Committee On
Taxation Before The Subcommittee On Oversight Of The House Committee On
Ways And Means June 20, 2000. June 20, 2000
JCX-61-00--Description Of H.R. ______ (The ``Full And Fair
Political Activity Disclosure Act Of 2000'') Scheduled for a Markup
Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 22, 2000. June 21,
2000
JCX-62-00--(Skipped)
JCX-63-00--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute To The Provisions Of H.R. 4717 (The ``Full And Fair
Political Activity Disclosure Act Of 2000''). June 22, 2000
JCX-64-00--Description Of A Chairman's Mark Of The Marriage Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000 Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
Committee on Finance on June 28, 2000. June 26, 2000
JCX-65-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Marriage Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act Of 2000,'' As Reported By The Committee On Finance
On June 28, 2000. June 30, 2000
JCX-66-00--Distributional Effects Of The ``Marriage Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act Of 2000,'' As Reported By The Committee On Finance
On June 28, 2000. June 30, 2000
JCX-67-00--Technical Explanation Of The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Reconciliation Act Of 2000 (H.R. 4810). July 11, 2000
JCX-68-00--Summary Of The ``Comprehensive Retirement Security And
Pension Reform Act''. July 11, 2000
JCX-69-00--Description Of The ``Comprehensive Retirement Security
And Pension Reform Act'' Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on
Ways and Means on July 13, 2000. July 11, 2000
JCX-70-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Comprehensive
Retirement Security And Pension Reform Act'' Scheduled For Markup By
The Committee On Ways And Means On July 13, 2000. July 11, 2000
JCX-71-00--Description Of Chairman Archer's Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute To H.R. 4843, The ``Comprehensive Retirement Security
And Pension Reform Act''. July 13, 2000
JCX-72-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4843, The ``Comprehensive Retirement
Security And Pension Reform Act'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee
On Ways And Means On July 13, 2000. July 13, 2000
JCX-73-00--Description Of The Social Security Benefits Tax Relief
Act Of 2000 (H.R. 4865). July 17, 2000
JCX-74-00R--Description Of The Railroad Retirement And Survivors'
Improvement Act Of 2000 (H.R. 4844). July 24, 2000
JCX-75-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Social Security
Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The
Committee On Ways And Means On July 19, 2000. July 18, 2000
JCX-76-00--Technical Explanation Of H.R. 4866 The ``Debt Relief
Reconciliation Act For Fiscal Year 2001''. July 18, 2000
JCX-77-00--Description Of Chairman Archer's Amendment In The Nature
Of A Substitute To H.R. 4865, The ``Social Security Benefits Tax Relief
Act Of 2000''. July 18, 2000
JCX-78-00R--Description Of Chairman Archer's Amendment In The
Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4844, The ``Railroad Retirement And
Survivors' Improvement Act Of 2000''. July 24, 2000
JCX-79-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Conference Agreement
For H.R. 4810, The ``Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000''.
July 19, 2000
JCX-80-00--Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For
H.R. 4810, The ``Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000''. July
20, 2000
JCX-81-00--Comparison Of Federal Tax Liabilities Under Present Law
And Under The Conference Agreement For H.R. 4810, The ``Marriage Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000,'' For Hypothetical Married Couples.
July 20, 2000
JCX-82-00--Summary Of Provisions Included In The Conference
Agreement For The ``Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000''
(H.R. 4810). July 20, 2000
JCX-83-00--Overview Of Selected Federal Income Tax Provisions
Relating To Transportation Infrastructure Scheduled for a Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and
Means on July 25, 2000. July 21, 2000
JCX-84-00--Present Law And Description Of Proposals Relating To
Federal Income Tax Provisions That Impact Energy, Fuel, And Land Use
Conservation And Preservation Scheduled for a Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight of the Senate Committee on
Finance on July 25, 2000. July 24, 2000
JCX-85-00--Technical Explanation Of The Tax Provisions In H.R. 4923
The ``Community Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000''. July 25, 2000
JCX-86-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4923, The ``Community
Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000''. July 25, 2000
JCX-87-00--Description Of H.R. ______ (The ``FSC Repeal And
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000'') Scheduled for Markup
by the House Committee On Ways And Means on July 27, 2000. July 27,
2000
JCX-88-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4986, The ``FSC
Repleal And Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled
For Markup By The Committee On Ways And Means On July 27, 2000. July
27, 2000
JCX-89-00--Description Of The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Retirement
Security And Savings Act Of 2000'' Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
Committee on Finance on September 7, 2000. September 5, 2000
JCX-90-00--Description Of The Chairman's Mark Of The ``Retired Coal
Miners Health Benefit Security Act'' Scheduled for Markup by the Senate
Committee on Finance on September 7, 2000. September 5, 2000
JCX-91-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Mark Of The
``Retirement Security And Savings Act Of 2000,'' Including
Congressional Budget Act Sunset For Years After December 31, 2004,
Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On September 7, 2000.
September 6, 2000
JCX-92-00--Description Of Modification To The Chairman's Mark Of
The ``Retirement Security And Savings Act Of 2000''. September 7, 2000
JCX-93-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Modification To The
Chairman's Mark Of The ``Retirement Security And Savings Act Of 2000,''
Including Congressional Budget Act Sunset For Years After December 31,
2004, Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On September 7,
2000. September 7, 2000
JCX-94-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 1102, The ``Retirement
Security And Savings Act Of 2000,'' Including Congressional Budget Act
Sunset For Years After December 31, 2004, As Ordered Reported By The
Committee On Finance On September 7, 2000. September 8, 2000
JCX-95-00--Description of H.R. ______, the ``Debt Relief Lock-Box
Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001'' Scheduled for a Markup Before
the House Committee on Ways and Means On September 14, 2000. September
13, 2000
JCX-96-00--Description of an Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to the Provisions of H.R. 5173, the ``Debt Relief Lock-Box
Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001''. September 14, 2000
JCX-97-00--Description Of H.R. 4986 (The ``FSC Repeal And
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000'') Scheduled for Markup
by the Senate Committee on Finance on September 19, 2000. September 15,
2000
JCX-98-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4986, The ``FSC Repeal
And Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000,'' As Passed By The
House Of Representatives And Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On
Finance On September 19, 2000. September 15, 2000
JCX-99-00--Description Of Community Renewal And New Markets Act Of
2000 Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on
September 20, 2000. September 18, 2000
JCX-100-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Mark Of The
``Community Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000,'' Scheduled For Markup
By The Committee On Finance On September 20, 2000. September 19, 2000
JCX-101-00--Description Of A Chairman's Mark Of The ``Railroad
Retirement And Survivors' Improvement Act Of 2000'' (H.R. 4844).
September 25, 2000
JCX-102-00--Description Of Chairman Roth's Amendment To The
Chairman's Mark Of The ``Railroad Retirement And Survivors' Improvement
Act Of 2000'' (H.R. 4844). September 26, 2000
JCX-103-00--Description Of Proposed Modifications To The Chairman's
Mark Of ``The Community Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000'' Scheduled
for Markup before the Senate Committee on Finance on September 27,
2000. September 27, 2000
JCX-104-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Modification To The
Chairman's Mark Of The ``Community Renewal And New Markets Act Of
2000,'' Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On September
27, 2000. September 27, 2000
JCX-105-00--Technical Explanation Of S. 3152, The ``Community
Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000''. October 3, 2000
JCX-106-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 3152, The ``Community
Renewal And New Markets Act Of 2000''. October 5, 2000
JCX-107-00--Overview Of Federal Income Tax Provisions Relating To
Employee Stock Options Scheduled for a Hearing Before the Subcommittee
on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 12,
2000. October 10, 2000
JCX-108-00--Technical Explanation Of The Tax Provisions Of H.R.
4541, The ``Commodity Futures Modernization Act Of 2000''. October 19,
2000
JCX-109-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Relief Act
Of 2000''. October 26, 2000
JCX-110-00--Summary Of Provisions Contained In H.R. 5542, The
``Taxpayer Relief Act Of 2000,'' As Incorporated By Reference In The
Conference Agreement For H.R. 2614. October 31, 2000
JCX-111-00--Technical Explanation Of The Senate Amendment To H.R.
4986, The ``FSC Repeal And Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act Of
2000''. November 1, 2000
JCX-112-00--Summary Of Provisions Contained In H.R. 5662, The
``Community Renewal Tax Relief Act Of 2000''. December 15, 2000
JCX-113-00--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 5662, The ``Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act Of 2000''. December 15, 2000
Attachment C.--Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimate requests
Calendar year No. of requests
1986.............................................................. 474
1987.............................................................. 420
1988.............................................................. 900
1989.............................................................. 1,290
1990.............................................................. 1,286
1991.............................................................. 1,461
1992.............................................................. 2,350
1993.............................................................. 2,380
1994.............................................................. 1,259
1995.............................................................. 2,278
1996.............................................................. 1,792
1997.............................................................. 2,079
1998.............................................................. 2,729
1999.............................................................. 4,150
2000.............................................................. 2,798
ATTACHMENT D.--2ND SESSION OF THE 106TH CONGRESS REQUEST DATA \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests Requests Requests Percent
Requestors Received Pending Closed Closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ways and Means Committee:
Republicans............. 657 165 492 74.9
Democrats............... 311 75 236 75.9
Senate Finance Committee:
Republicans............. 541 82 459 84.8
Democrats............... 608 128 480 78.9
Non-Ways and Means
Committee:
Republicans............. 142 52 90 63.4
Democrats/Independent... 82 38 44 53.7
Non-Senate Finance
Committee:
Republicans............. 195 69 126 64.6
Democrats............... 228 123 105 46.1
Others...................... 34 6 28 82.4
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 2,798 738 2,060 73.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests as of December
1, 2000.
Attachment E.--Memorandum
November 29, 2000.
To: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
From: Senior Refund Counsel
Subject: Refund Section--Operations Report October 1, 1999 through
September 30, 2000
This is a report on the more significant developments in this
Office during this period.
SUMMARY
Volume.--Refund Cases--664 reports were received during this
period. The total dollar amount of refunds was $5,553,862,865.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports received 1996 1997 1998 \1\ 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examination Division.......................................... 375 457 334 449 550
Appeals Division.............................................. 101 124 92 108 99
Department of Justice......................................... 25 18 12 15 10
Chief Counsel................................................. 5 3 1 5 5
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 506 602 439 577 664
=================================================
Concerns...................................................... 88 84 55 61 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1998 was based on a short nine-month period, i.e., January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998.
Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
on an annual basis.
Other Action.--We discussed various issues with the Treasury
Department and Internal Revenue Service personnel, and forwarded one
item for legislative clarification.
Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
foregoing.
Errors identified by us in fiscal year 2000 and prior years, and
settled in fiscal year 2000 produced a net reduction in refunds of
$11.7 million. The average annual reduction for the last ten years is
$11.9 million. Such corrections also reduced ATNOLCFs $43 million.
We hope that we are satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned
portion of the Committee's mission and meeting your expectations. We
look forward to a productive, challenging year.
EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405
[From October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Cumulative
Month cases Cumulative monthly Dollar receipts Cumulative
received total average dollar receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October.................................... 43 43 43 $273,883,465 $273,883,465
November................................... 49 92 46 442,981,593 716,865,058
December................................... 46 138 46 516,059,644 1,232,924,702
January.................................... 38 176 44 399,902,828 1,632,827,530
February................................... 71 247 49 543,155,183 2,175,982,713
March...................................... 71 318 53 467,745,132 2,643,727,845
April...................................... 57 375 54 217,669,564 2,861,397,409
May........................................ 64 439 55 508,390,289 3,369,787,698
June....................................... 49 488 54 545,949,472 3,915,737,170
July....................................... 62 550 55 643,078,935 4,558,816,105
August..................................... 83 633 58 782,682,565 5,341,498,670
September.................................. 31 664 55 212,364,195 5,553,862,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE--FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPES OF TAXPAYERS SOURCE OF REPORTS
Individuals.............................. 27 4.1 Examination................. 550 82.8
Estates.................................. 22 3.3 Appeals..................... 99 14.9
Trusts................................... 4 .6 Justice..................... 10 1.5
Corporations............................. 611 92.0 Tax Court................... 5 .8
--------------------- -------------------
Total.............................. 664 100.0 Total................. 664 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND APPEALS
[From October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Examination Cumulative Appeals Cumulative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October......................................................... 37 37 6 6
November........................................................ 47 84 2 8
December........................................................ 37 121 8 16
January......................................................... 26 147 11 27
February........................................................ 63 210 6 33
March........................................................... 60 270 9 42
April........................................................... 46 316 11 53
May............................................................. 55 371 8 61
June............................................................ 39 410 10 71
July............................................................ 48 458 10 81
August.......................................................... 70 528 9 90
September....................................................... 22 550 9 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAL STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BILL THOMAS
Mr. Thomas. You are correct. There is an additional
$200,000 that should be on top of the numbers that you
indicated to continue the Joint Committee study on tax
simplification. We recently published a three-volume study on
this subject.
To a certain extent, it is a little bit like self-evident
areas. However, it is very helpful if not on the major
portions--and I believe the Joint Committee's statement of the
desirability of repealing the alternative minimum tax both for
individuals and corporations would be considered major--but
when you look at the more than 50 other very specific points,
especially on funding mechanisms, which could be simplified in
almost a technical way, it would greatly clarify the Code.
There are more fundamental ways to clarify the Code, but
the study that is ongoing is very helpful in pinpointing areas
where, on a bipartisan basis, we can move without a lot of
difficulty. So, that study is required, and I have found it,
especially at the beginning of my chairmanship, very helpful to
help me focus on portions of the Code.
The money is not for additional personnel. Save for a half
a person, the staffing of the Joint Committee is the same as it
was in 1980. The point that I want to make is that, given the
changes, both in terms of support and, frankly, the work
commitment of the staff of the Joint Committee, the
productivity is so much higher, driven in part by the revenue
estimate requests.
The Congress of 1980, for some reason, did not submit their
requests like the Congress of today. I think it is, in part, a
change in the makeup of the Members. At one point, there was a
degree of seniority felt as a screening test to ask the Joint
Committee for a revenue estimate. When you look at the number
of requests, just to give you a feel for what has happened,
only since 1986, from 474 to a peak of 4,150. That is just the
sheer number of requests coming in. There was a slight dip, but
it has gone back up.
I am very sensitive to the fact that this is a joint
committee. So, I had to run some numbers on the number of
requests of both Republicans and Democrats from the Ways and
Means Committee. That was 968 requests for the second session
of the 106th Congress. And from the Senate Finance Committee,
Republicans and Democrats, it was 1,149 requests. So, we have a
fairly decent balance.
From non-Ways and Means Members, both Democrats and
Republicans in the House, it was 324 requests. From non-Finance
Committee Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, it was 423,
for a total of almost 2,800 requests in the second session.
When you get that many requests, there is a degree of, if
not complete, at least partial, duplication so that answering
one allows you to fairly rapidly turn over answering another.
But when you go from 400 for the total to almost 3,000, that
clearly says, when you have not increased your personnel, you
are getting significant work out of those individuals. That is
why we have requested a cost-of-living adjustment with a
meritorious increase. We try to time the meritorious increase
toward the end of the session when the clock is running
literally all day and all night.
It is a little stimulus to get stuff done when we need it.
So, although there are areas of contention about the Joint
Committee, including the estimates that it makes, the manner in
which it makes them, and the conditions under which it makes
them, I believe over this session and the next session of the
107th Congress, we will be making changes that will satisfy the
concern about the now age-old argument between static and
dynamic scoring to a certain extent. Not that we would create a
model which would allow us to look at the world fundamentally
differently, but that we begin to realize that any number has
shades to it. To the degree we can begin to get a bit more
sophisticated in the way we view the numbers, I think it will
create an atmosphere which will allow us to come together a
little easier than a single hard and fast number with no
options.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just thank you and urge
you, based upon what I consider to be the reasonableness of the
request, to fund the Joint Committee at the requested level.
FORECASTS
Senator Bennett. Thank you. That is very helpful and,
frankly, very encouraging. One of the most frustrating things
for me, coming into the Senate, as I do at the end of a
business career, instead of coming into the Senate as a young
man, the way some of my colleagues did--I have learned in the
business world that forecasts are always fraught with problems.
As I say, one of the most frustrating things for me was to come
here and have people stand up and say, this number, this number
1 year out, 5 years out, 10 years out, and so on. I said, wait
a minute. Nobody knows that. Nobody can be that certain.
I have been around here long enough that the anger seems to
have died down a little, and that may not be good.
But it is very helpful to have you talk about this kind of
study and this kind of willingness to accept a flexibility and
say we are talking about a range rather than a single number
and there are possibilities here. I applaud the indication that
you are doing this on a bipartisan basis so that it will not be
ideologically attacked.
Mr. Thomas. If I can respond. The closer we are to the
current date, if you are dealing with ranges, the narrower the
range. The key point here would be that as we get into these--
the House deals with 5-year numbers; the Senate chooses to deal
with 10-year numbers--that you would like to indicate to people
that the range continues to open up so that, although you are
attempting certainty, the certainty is that you are uncertain.
I agree with you. Even if the shaded number is not an
official number and a single number is, it begins to show, I
think, an appreciation for our real-worldness which can only
enhance our ability to make projections with the understanding
that we are doing it humbly, rather than boldly with certainty.
Senator Bennett. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Two comments and one question.
First, Alan Greenspan is widely recognized as the wisest
man in all Christendom when it comes to the economy, and 8
months ago, he was raising interest rates.
Senator Bennett. You are excluding the Muslim world?
Senator Durbin. I guess I should never get that close to
religion in Government. But the point I am trying to make is
that projections are difficult in this business, and some of
us, when we look at projections of surpluses 5 and 10 years
from now, think it is almost laughable to guess where America
is going to be. I hope the optimistic projections are all
right, but time will tell.
TAX SIMPLIFICATION
I would like to make a suggestion on tax simplification. I
think this is very basic. It will create a political force for
simplification which will be overwhelming. And that would be to
require every Member of Congress to prepare their own personal
income tax returns.
Mr. Thomas. I agree. I do that myself. I have done it ever
since I have come in.
Senator Durbin. I have done it too.
Mr. Thomas. Done it too, or did you do it? Do you do it?
Senator Durbin. Well, here is what I did.
Mr. Thomas. Did you do it this year?
Senator Durbin. I did it this year, and thank God I sent it
to a bookkeeper to look at; who corrected my mistakes.
The point I am making is I think a little personal
experience with tax forms helps us to appreciate what a lot of
people go through.
Mr. Thomas. Especially with the availability of computer
programs which help you with the accuracy of your math. I did
it this time only because there was some property that had been
my parents, and so it required me to go to a new form and work
through that form.
Senator Durbin. That is always exciting.
Mr. Thomas. As you know, most of us have a fairly boring
tax picture once you get in office because you do not want to
be accused of doing things, so you get rid of all of those.
This required me to deal with it slightly differently, and
frankly, I had to sit down and go back, read the material for
preparation, read it twice and get a comfort level, then go to
the help portion and continually ask questions as I was trying
to fill out the form, your point obviously being well taken. It
gives you a new appreciation for what I consider a fairly
simple form and the difficulty in getting it right, which I
hope I did.
Senator Durbin. Well, I was glad to have somebody look over
my shoulder, and I was also glad to be able to call the 800
number at the Internal Revenue Service and get answers to
questions. People were extremely courteous and very responsive.
I think they did a good job.
REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR PRESIDENT'S TAX PLAN
My question to you is, are the revenue estimates for the
President's tax plan going to be forthcoming from the Joint
Committee?
Ms. Paull. Yes. They are in review right now. I have been
out sick for a couple of days, but any day now they will be
out.
Senator Durbin. Good. That is all I have. Thanks.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
I gave up doing my own as soon as I was introduced to that
wondrous document called the K-1, and that became impenetrable
to me. I finally decided to turn this over to a professional.
As long as I was dealing with the W-2, I was just fine.
Mr. Thomas. If we traded resources, I would gladly go to a
tax preparer.
Senator Bennett. I will not comment on that.
Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your being here and
your support of this appropriations request. I think you are
comfortable that you will get it.
Mr. Thomas. I also just want to caution you that you can
only hold the number at 66 for so long and you can only get
productivity out of the same number for so long, and if the
requests continue to go up, it is a function of additional
people and more money. We are struggling with other budget
numbers. I would hope folks would see this as not only
appropriate but extremely reasonable for the work product that
we get out of these people. They are very talented, but more
importantly, they are very dedicated.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Thank you for the warning.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS--Continued
Senator Bennett. We will now go to the Congressional
Research Service. Again, Mr. Mulhollan, we appreciate your
courtesy in allowing us to go out of order in that way.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. The budget request is $7.7 million over
the amounts appropriated last year. Half of this increase, I
understand, is for maintaining current services, including the
funding of the cost-of-living increases. The balance is to hire
additional staff and to acquire capability that would come from
the additional staff. We look forward to your statement and
your explanation of what this additional staff would do.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin. I
really appreciate the opportunity to be here before you to
present CRS' budget request for 2002.
I ask that my printed statement be a part of the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
Mr. Mulhollan. The rise of technology and the Information
Age have fundamentally changed the way Congress works, from the
nature of the public policy issues you debate, to the ways in
which you conduct your daily work, to the methods you and your
staff use to communicate, both within Capitol Hill and outside
of Capitol Hill. At the same time, the nature of CRS research
is changing as well from a primarily paper-based world to a
digitally dominated universe.
What do these changes mean? They mean as Congress changes,
so must CRS.
CRS is falling short in assisting you in critical new
subject areas and working with you in an integrated, secure,
and robust technology-based environment that allows us to
provide you with the analysis and information you need where
you need it, when you need it, and in providing the technical
tools that our researchers need to perform their work for the
Congress.
Our current resources are not enough to meet the new and
increasing demands of policy making. Our budget request is
designed to take action now before we fall even further behind.
There are two components to our request. One is to maintain
our current services by funding mandatory cost-of-living and
pay, just as you said, Mr. Chairman, and the balance is needed
to acquire capacity to better analyze complex information and
technology policy issues and to equip ourselves with the
leadership, technical staff, skills, and tools necessary to
address serious and significant gaps in capacity to analyze
complex technology policy issues, and to conduct collaborative
research and to apply technology to work and communication
processes.
Specifically our plan is to hire five senior analysts to
provide high level expertise and service-wide leadership on
technology policy issues and to begin equipping ourselves with
the leadership and technical staff and tools we need to use
technology effectively and proactively to support the Congress.
Our request does not propose funding tactical change.
Rather, it supports the strategic, mission-critical change
necessary for the service to continue fulfilling its statutory
mandate as the key nonpartisan public policy research arm of
the U.S. Congress in a digital environment. It is not about
coping with the future; it is about confronting the future that
is already here and threatens to leave us in its wake.
As the Congress is placing new and increasing reliance on
information technologies, so too must CRS. We have always
aligned our work with your work. That is our mission. That is
our mandate. To continue the strong condition of service and
reliability, CRS needs your help.
Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
INFORMATION REQUESTS
Do you have statistics similar to those we have just seen
about requests from Congress?
Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, sir. In total, we respond to 600,000
requests a year.
Senator Bennett. And is the trend upward?
Mr. Mulhollan. It is upward, but it has changed. It is a
slightly upward number, but what is really changing is the
access to the Web. The staff and Members are increasingly going
to the Web for information, and we are learning how to do a
better job in being responsive to Members, anticipating
questions and having more interaction. Many web products have
the name of the analyst and their phone number and their
subject expertise so that they can provide more follow-up
information. Also, if the request does not have to be answered
within 24 hours, you can place that request now on our website,
because we have gotten the security necessary for that.
And a particular new initiative is in the center part, the
most valuable real estate on the website. We focus on the major
145 issues that are coming up this session in the most pointed
way, in the most up-to-date manner and keep them up-to-date as
those issues change. So, as the subcommittee moves to the full
committee on action, we are taking that into account.
Senator Bennett. So, let me understand. If my staff has an
issue that they want help from CRS, in today's world the first
thing they would do is not pick up the phone, but rather call
up an appropriate Web page.
Mr. Mulhollan. They will call up the CRS website.
Senator Bennett. And they might get the information
entirely off the website and never talk to one of your
analysts?
Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct.
PRODUCTIVITY
Senator Bennett. Are you showing any increased productivity
in terms, therefore, as a result of analysts' ability to off-
load routine activity onto the Web and be more available for
more specific kinds of things, or is that just a dream?
Mr. Mulhollan. No, it is not a dream. It is happening in a
number of areas. First of all, since 1992 CRS has 117.4 less
staff and roughly the same number of requests.
Senator Bennett. 1992?
Mr. Mulhollan. From 1992, it has been 117, a 14.1 percent
reduction.
Secondly, what we have been able to do--I will give you an
example. We have an electronic briefing book on campaign
finance. What we have been able to do, as a result of that, is
provide our two lead analysts, Page Whittaker, an attorney with
our American Law Division, and Joe Cantor, an analyst in our
Government and Finance Division, with tools to manage their
workload for one-on-one conversations because they were able to
direct, during the debate, many of the calls coming in to the
website so that they could focus those questions that they had
not either anticipated or had already responded to earlier on.
We look at every CRS report that we do as a workload
manager. So, for instance, if I do an analysis for you on a
directed memorandum, of which we did 1,000 last year, and one
for Senator Durbin, I am looking back and saying, we are
getting questions on roughly the same issue. If I do a report,
I can manage 85 percent of the requests coming in so that I can
focus my attention on those 15 percent that are more targeted,
when someone has a specific amendment or there is a regional or
other focused concern.
CHANGING NATURE OF THE WORK OF CRS
Senator Bennett. This is not an appropriate question for
this particular appropriation, but I will take the opportunity
to ask it anyway. It occurs to me when I served on a Senate
staff, the Senators felt newly liberated because they had come
out of what was then called the Old Senate Office Building with
the creation of the new Senate Office Building. So, Senators
had come from three rooms to five rooms and naturally filled
the five rooms with extra staff. Now I have 10 rooms, plus
whatever I can steal by virtue of committee assignment.
Completely out of the blue, but do you have a sense that
the proliferation of staff among Members of Congress has
increased the demands on CRS or decreased?
Mr. Mulhollan. Well, first, if you recall, there was a 15
percent reduction in the Senate and Senate committee staff not
too long ago.
Senator Bennett. Yes, I was part of that.
Mr. Mulhollan. My sense is actually that the way the work
is changing reflects the challenges that you face in the body.
Our request emphasizes our need for expertise to deal with the
impact of new information industries and the way they impact
other subject policy areas. You reduced staff resources but the
issues require greater expertise and examination of complex
data--and these are issues that greatly affect people's lives.
For example, Congress will soon have to reauthorize Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). And of course there are
other issues, such as the dairy concerns in the Farm Bill,
which are highly complex and require specialized knowledge. On
the other hand, there is less specialization in the Senate, and
I think that trend in part is a result of the demands of
campaign financing and the need to have more diverse sources of
funding. In addition, I think it is also affected by the impact
of the greater economic diversity taking place within the
States, and so you are less apt to have homogeneity of
industries within a State. Therefore my sense is--I have been
here for 31 years--that in fact Members of the Senate have to
pay attention to more issues than they have in the past, and
that the tradition of Senator specialization in a particular
cluster of issues has been in decline. There are simply more
issues you have to pay attention to. There may be other factors
contributing to the development I have not thought of.
Senator Bennett. I have that same sense. I appreciate that.
SECURITY ISSUES
What is the status of the program to provide Members'
district offices with secure access to CRS?
Mr. Mulhollan. I'll provide some information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Availability of and Access to the CRS Web Site by Congressional State
and District Offices
Congressional state and district offices currently have full access
to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Web site. The security of
the site is provided by the Capitol Hill-wide network (CAPNET), to
which all congressional offices have direct access. The site
(www.crs.gov) not only provides these offices with up-to-date analysis
and research on current legislative issues, but also makes available to
them sources that may be of particular value to state and district
offices, such as:
--resources related to the CRS District/State Staff Institute (a
regular CRS seminar on matters of interest to these offices);
--information on federal grants and non-financial assistance;
--the ``In the Mailbag'' page; designed to direct and inform offices
on issues about which they are receiving constituent inquiries
and mass mailings; and
--online sources to supplement state and district office reference
collections.
Information security has always been a critical tenet of any
communication between CRS and congressional offices, whether on the
Capitol Hill campus or in state and district offices. Electronic
communication links to state and district offices that are not in
physical proximity to the Service are particularly important. The
fiscal year 2002 CRS budget submission has several components that will
enhance the Service's ability to provide secure electronic services to
all congressional offices: additional technical staff for the Service,
a Web server cluster which will host the CRS Web presence for the
Congress, and contract funds specifically earmarked for (1) overall
system security, and (2) development and deployment, with a security
focus, of needed hardware and software. Specific impacts include:
--Enhancement of the current Web-based CRS inquiry system.
Congressional staff may now place requests for CRS services
electronically, 24 hours a day, using a secure Web-based
interface on the CRS Web site. This is especially useful for
state and district offices not operating in the eastern time
zone and who consequently have business hours that extend
beyond those of Washington, DC.
--Ability to explore approaches to providing secure remote access--
such as virtual private network technology (VPN)--to CRS
services from state and district offices, (as well as to
Members and staff who, due to travel or other responsibilities,
cannot access the CRS Web site through the standard CAPNET
connections).
--Employment of technologies to enhance the reliability and security
of materials provided directly to the Congress and through the
Congress, to constituents (often interacting with Members
through their state and district offices).
--Enhanced security of e-mail between CRS and congressional Capitol
Hill, state, and district offices by exploring a variety of
secure enhancements to e-mail communications, including
encryption, Web-based e-mail using VPN technology, and other
options.
--Improvement of the reliability and security of the CRS Web presence
for the Congress to assure that operations will not be
interrupted if systems failures or disasters were to occur.
Mr. Mulhollan. The budget request will help us towards that
end. One of the benefits for CRS that helps us on computer
security is that we have a sole client. That is you. So,
whereas in the Library of Congress, the security challenges are
of a different nature, inasmuch as they have such a public
role, for the Congressional Research Service our budget request
seeks to ensure the security of our systems from any public
access.
Four years ago, we had the National Security Agency help us
conduct our first whole review of computer security, and it was
extremely sobering. We have private organizations continuing to
examine this and worked very closely with the Library on a
number of those issues. But we have a long way to go. But this
request will help us to maintain security between State and
district offices and ourselves.
Senator Bennett. When you say it was sobering, go a little
further down that. What is the source of the threat? Again, is
it hackers wanting to deface the site or is it somebody trying
to interfere?
Mr. Mulhollan. I think it is all of the above. Part of it,
you have to realize that, of course, when you have someone who
is mischievous as opposed to someone who is malevolent, that
when you are dealing with the drafting and the consideration of
the Nation's laws, that there are a whole host of
considerations we take in account and those who would want to
cause harm in varying degrees. We could be embarrassed if
someone wanted to just change the numbers in a memorandum being
sent to you.
But I think also because CRS stands for the principle of
extension of staff, confidentiality is paramount. Right now
there has been demand in the Senate, for electronic
communication, and Senators will say, well, I will take
responsibility to send something to them. I still say no,
because the fact is that though there may be a momentary
embarrassment if a certain type of request a Senator asks would
be made public, it would devastate the reputation of CRS
because we must be certain that our reputation remains
inviolate, that no one ever knows what we are asked by our
client. Any damage to our reputation would be permanent. So,
that is an absolute. We are working very hard on security of
those communications between ourselves and you.
[The information follows:]
CRS Computer Security Incidents
The following describes computer security incidents that have
occurred within the past year that have either directly, or indirectly
affected CRS.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
This graph shows the number of malicious code email attachments
that were intercepted and removed by Guinevere (an e-mail filter
program that eliminates many viruses and other potentially dangerous
programs) software before they could enter the CRS network. The total
count for instances of malicious code (dangerous programs) prevented
from entering CRS between August 2000 and March 2001 is 1,059. The
spike during January may be interpreted as a holiday effect, where
friends unknowingly send each other email greetings with malicious code
attachments.
Since January 2000, there have been several other documented
security incidents that either directly, or indirectly involve CRS:
January 16, 2000................................ The Library of Congress (LOC) Web site was hacked. The Thomas Web pages were altered by a hacker group
calling themselves ``Lamer's Team''. The news story can be found at http://dailynews.yahoo.com. The
hackers gained access to 3 hosts, however there was no report that the hackers gained access to ISIS
files on the SP-13 Web host.
February 4, 2000................................ An external Web device scanned the LOC network, specifically targeting CRS servers. (A ``scan''
through the Internet is an attempt by a hacker to find a computer that has any type of vulnerability
known to the hacker, for example, a Trojan Horse. A Trojan Horse is program that can be secretly
installed on a PC or a server. If a hacker finds and triggers a Trojan Horse program, it can open a
back door that the hacker can use to take control of the computer.) In this case, the LOC agency
firewall successfully blocked these attempted scans.
February 25, 2000............................... An external Web server scanned the LOC network a second time, specifically targeting several CRS
servers. This second scan was successfully blocked by the LOC agency firewall, but it was worrisome
because it indicated that a hacker may be in the process of becoming familiar with part of the LOC
network internals.
March 6, 2000................................... A Trojan Horse program was identified and purged from an email message sent to a CRS user. This Trojan
Horse program, called ``PWSteal.TrojanB'' reportedly was designed to send out password information to
a 3rd party.
March 23, 2000.................................. A CRS user was singled out as the target for a scan from outside the agency. Investigation showed that
this was the possible result of the CRS user previously visiting a hacker Web site, which may have
then targeted his machine for scanning. The LOC agency firewall blocked the attempted scan.
May 4, 2000..................................... The LOVE-BUG virus was distributed worldwide. CRS immediately updated its Norton Anti-Virus software,
which was quickly distributed to all CRS desktops. There were no reports of CRS being affected by the
LOVE-BUG virus.
July 12, 2000................................... The CRS portion of the LOC network was targeted by scans coming from the ``Iwon'' Web site. This Web
site offers games and amusements, and may also target visitors for future scans after attempting to
plant a Trojan Horse on the user's PC. The LOC agency firewall blocked the attempted scans.
October 4, 2000................................. A CRS user received network traffic that was illogical to the agency firewall, which then tripped an
alarm for the agency firewall administrator. The agency firewall blocked this suspicious traffic to
the CRS user's desktop. Analysis showed the CRS user was receiving messages from a Web site that had
been substituted for the original Web site the user visited. Some Web sites have the ability to shift
a user from one site to another, without the user knowing that this is happening. Sometimes this
switching is valid, but it must be implemented correctly to avoid alarms. This Web site switch has
the potential to be a security problem, if the substituted Web site is owned by a hacker.
October 14, 2000................................ ITS announced that it will periodically scan the LOC network to try to identify any PCs that have
Trojan Horses.
April 26-May 3, 2001............................ The LOC network was the target of a prolonged series of scans coming from Linux servers located in
many different parts of the world. The firewall administrator identified 65 Linux servers that
apparently were taken over by hacker code, and directed to scan the LOC agency. The LOC firewall
administrator notified many of the Web masters for the Linux servers, who immediately disconnected
their compromised machines for rebuilding. Some of the Linux server administrators could not be
contacted. Because these scans were from a fixed group of servers, were 5 or 6 days duration, and
were directed in a systematic pattern of scans, it may be considered an attack. CRS network addresses
may have been targeted specifically. However, CRS' network was not compromised.
May 14, 2001.................................... A CRS network address (in this case a specific PC in CRS) was the target of a series of network scans
that lasted from May 3 to May 14. The scan repeatedly sought a response from network ports 2583 and
5742, which are well known ports associated with Trojan Horse programs. The majority of the computers
sending the scans were located in Brazil, with several also located in other nations. The agency
firewall blocked these attempted scans, so the CRS network was not compromised.
CRS has identified two approaches to address these attacks,
especially the April 26-May 3rd and May 14th incidents:
--(1) CRS regularly applies operating system patches and updates to
all its servers. CRS is currently instituting a process of
tracking and documenting all such updates as they are
accomplished.
--(2) An intruder detection system (IDS) should be implemented in CRS
to continuously scan all server logs and alert administrators
to suspicious activities. This security component is part of
the 2002 CRS budget request.
Senator Bennett. Senator Durbin.
CRS WORKLOAD
Senator Durbin. Interesting. We just had the Joint
Committee on Taxation talk about 66 employees and 3,000
requests. You have 713 employees and 600,000 requests. Quite an
increase in order of magnitude here. But I also notice that 92
percent of your requests are answered the same day.
Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. We may be comparing apples and oranges here
between what is expected of each source of information. But can
you give us an idea, when you talk about the workload that your
people are facing, if we are talking about 600,000 requests in
the course of a year and so many are answered the same day, are
some of these routine requests for information?
Mr. Mulhollan. Well, you have to remember a good portion of
those requests--and I will submit the data for the record--are
those that are hits on the website. Someone can spend literally
4 hours on the website doing a number of things.
For instance, I was talking to a staff person for a
Senator, and they were very complimentary of the website
because they are able to take text off the web product to help
on a statement and use it to provide background on an issue.
The web material can be downloaded into word processing
programs and thus enable congressional staff to use the website
literally as an extension of staff.
So, in one instance you or your staff can go to the CRS
website to use our analysis of public policy issues. This is
one efficient way for you to get your answers. That is our
business plan and that in fact is what is happening I believe
here.
But at the same time, I can have one colleague working 3
months on one particular long-term report.
I would be happy to provide you the data of how that breaks
down. Of that 8 percent, that is still dealing with 57,000
requests that are answered differently as well within 24 hours.
But a great deal of the importance of the use of CRS is for
you to talk to the expert. It can be a simple phone call or
having him come over and brief you for what time you have, 15
minutes or an hour. That is within the same day. But at the
same time, you have had the expert available to you when you
want it.
[The information follows:]
CRS On-Demand Support for the Congress
CRS provides on-demand support for the Congress across the full
range of policy issues. Congress places a premium on immediate access
to authoritative information and high-level expertise and CRS endeavors
to meet these needs through a variety of well-developed and highly
effective planning activities and work practices.
The nature of CRS ``same-day'' services
The following characterizations of significant classes of ``same-
day'' interactions between Congress and CRS demonstrate the nature of
congressional access to information and analytical expertise from CRS
as well as our responsiveness to the needs of the Congress.
--About half the congressional requests placed with CRS subject
experts are made by direct telephone contact from congressional
staff to specific CRS experts.
Typically, such contacts entail immediate consultation to
assist staff with work in progress, to provide perspectives
and information relating to breaking events or supporting
last-minute meetings, and to assist with impending
legislative actions including, for example, procedural and
substantive consultations on floor amendments.
--Forty percent of roughly 2,000 in-person briefings CRS experts
conduct annually for Members and staff are carried out on the
same day they were requested and many of the remaining are
carried out within 24 hours.
Briefings provide obvious benefits to both parties in the
context of the need for immediate assistance. These include
direct interaction, easy integration of documentation into
discussions, and the ability to expand the number of
participants which often results in participation of CRS
experts representing different disciplines.
--Member and staff attendance at more than 300 CRS seminars,
institutes and training sessions is an important same-day CRS
service.
Historically, a little over one-half of those registering for
events actually attend, making the ultimate decision about
whether or not to attend on the day of the event. This
pattern, along with multiple registration dates for each
event, supports the CRS convention of regarding attendance
as same-day service for the approximately 10,000 attendees
at sessions conducted for new Members, quarterly reviews on
the economy, public policy institutes, and institutes on
legislative processes and procedures, among others.
--Congressional use of CRS electronic resources, another same-day CRS
service, is essential to providing focused, authoritative and
timely support to meet a large volume of daily needs across
many policy areas.
CRS uses the convention of counting congressional use of its
electronic services as same-day delivery of services to
capture and emphasize the congressional experience in
obtaining assistance. CRS made major advances in providing
electronic services to the Congress early this year with
the release of a totally redesigned CRS Web Site featuring
an initial version of a menu-based approach to key CRS
products on current legislative issues. Other electronic
services include CRS Electronic Briefing Books, CRS
products relating to the weekly House and Senate floor
agenda, automated searching of all CRS products, and online
access the Constitution Annotated which is prepared in CRS.
Preparations underlying ``same-day'' services
Preparations underlying same-day interactions between the Congress
and CRS are resource intensive, time-consuming and analytically
challenging. With extremely rare exception, these preparations are not
reflected in response time data.
CRS researchers prepare about 1,000 new CRS reports and issue
briefs annually. Each of these products, by design, is intended to meet
known and anticipated needs of a number of Members and staff. With only
an occasional exception, this kind of work is not represented in
response time data. Yet this work supports a large volume of
congressional needs, typically on an immediate basis, as demonstrated
by distribution of over 700,000 copies of such products annually.
Generally, CRS information specialists and policy experts must
accrue information, develop analytical frameworks and arrive at
insights through ongoing processes to be able to meet a variety of
congressional needs when they arise. Thus, CRS energy experts must be
positioned to respond to substantive policy questions about the
Administration energy proposal upon its release and, in some cases,
even before its release because of the availability of and
congressional interest in preliminary information. CRS experts face
similar requirements across the full array of policy areas including
Medicare coverage of prescription drugs for the elderly, military base
closures, flexibility and accountability in Federal education programs,
campaign finance reform, narcotics control, United States-China
relations, stem cell research, marriage neutrality and the Federal
income tax, fast-track for trade implementing legislation, patients'
rights, etc.
Again, through a variety of well-developed and highly effective
planning activities and work practices CRS strives to meet
congressional needs for immediate access to authoritative information
and high-level expertise on the full range of policy issues. As recent
significant enhancements to the CRS Web Site services indicate, efforts
in this direction are also continuing.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
[Summary of Completed Requests and Services Provided--Fiscal Year 2000 (All Four Quarters)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detail of Requests and Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Total Analysis, Cited Seminar, Center Client Use
Requester Category Requests and Information, Material and Institute, Direct of CRS
Services \1\ and Research CRS Product and Training Requests Electronic
Requests \2\ Requests \2\ Participants and Self Services
Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Requesters \3\....... 597,546 93,874 29,954 9,654 56,576 407,488
===============================================================================
House, Total.................... 353,388 61,764 20,329 5,739 33,053 232,503
Members..................... 99,310 51,228 18,526 4,883 24,673 NA
Committees.................. 21,575 10,536 1,803 856 8,380 NA
Automated (not specified) 232,503 NA NA NA NA 232,503
\4\........................
===============================================================================
Senate, Total................... 234,634 31,087 8,466 3,738 23,202 168,141
Members..................... 53,516 23,690 7,288 3,127 19,411 NA
Committees.................. 12,977 7,397 1,178 611 3,791 NA
Automated (not specified) 168,141 NA NA NA NA 168,141
\4\........................
===============================================================================
Joint........................... 1,194 653 217 41 283 ( \5\ )
Congressional Support Agencies.. 7,332 370 288 136 38 6,500
Not Specified \6\............... 998 NA 654 NA NA 344
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 78 percent of Total Requests and Services are immediate services by definition; this includes the following:
Reference Center Direct Requests and Self-Service, Product Distribution Center walk-ins, and Client Use of CRS
Electronic Services.
\2\ Analysis, Information, and Research Requests and Cited Material and CRS Product Requests no longer include
Reference Center Direct Requests, effective fiscal year 1996.
\3\ During fiscal year 2000, CRS provided services to all Members and all Committees; committee data include
party organizations; House and Senate combined totals sorted by client category: Members:152,826; Committees:
35,746; House and Senate Automated: 400,644.
\4\ Sign-ons to CRS electronic files (CRS Web), though identified by House or Senate, are not identified by
Member or Committee.
\5\ Joint committee electronic services are included in either House or Senate figures, depending on telephone
location.
\6\ Stats Line calls, Fax-on-Demand, and some cited product requests of the Product Distribution Center cannot
be identified by client category.
Senator Durbin. We had a conversation about this in my
office. It came up earlier with the Library of Congress. One of
the elements in your request is for additional technically
skilled personnel. I have asked what kind of incentives are
being used, including student loan forgiveness and deferral and
bonuses. Do you anticipate including that as one of your
incentives?
INCENTIVES FOR RECRUITMENT
Mr. Mulhollan. We are, in fact, looking at the student loan
program, working particularly with the Library of Congress'
general counsel and with our own graduate recruits. We have
brought in, I think, between 50 and 60 grad recruits coming in
fresh from the schools. We had, 2 years ago, the Maxwell School
of Syracuse do a study on recruitment. What are the factors
involved in bringing people in? One of the challenges I have
mentioned before is the question, first and foremost, of public
service. But secondly, it is not as much money, though that is
important, as the interest in the job. What CRS offers is in
fact that you are helping Congress work and write the laws of
the Nation. That is the kind of person we want to come in here,
and that is the kind of persons that we have on staff and are
currently working for you. If you can get that motivation and
that inspiration which you provide, then the other things are
important, but not nearly important as that motivation.
TUITION ASSISTANCE
My understanding right now of the OPM guidelines with
regard to tuition assistance is they use it as almost like a
hiring bonus. First, for retention, and secondly, if they can
provide unique skills. If I have 10 applications, a Ph.D. in
field biology, I may not say that that one student's skills are
unique. We are examining what options can be. I would be happy
to work with you to get more flexibility for helping students,
particularly those who have these graduate education debts.
Now, for instance, the JFK School offers a certain
percentage of their tuition to be placed aside, to be forgiven,
if they work in public service I believe. I think that that
sort of thing could be encouraged in schools because they found
the problem that more and more of their students were not going
into public service, and that a third went to the private
sector, a third into the nonprofit sector. That is a couple-
year-old data. But programs like that, working with what we can
also do in here, I think would be extremely helpful and
appreciated.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Mulhollan. We
appreciate your testimony and we appreciate the service you
render to the Congress.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Dr. Billington, I would like to congratulate you and the
Library for reaching the bicentennial goal of making available on-line
more than five million historically significant digital items. These
digital materials will help improve the teaching of American history
and other subjects throughout the country.
Does the Library's fiscal 2002 budget provide funding for making
available more digital content?
Answer. Yes, the existing fiscal 2001 base includes funding that
will continue to add content. The fiscal 2001 base funds for the
National Digital Library total $8,458,715, which includes resources to
add content. No new funds are included in the request for content.
Question. The Office of Compliance issued a fire safety report
earlier this year regarding the Library's buildings. Following the
report, several citations were issued both to the Library and to the
Architect of the Capitol.
How does the Library plan to address these fire safety citations?
Do you believe that the Library's collections are safe?
Answer. The fire safety report identified problems similar to those
identified in the Capitol and other congressional office buildings. The
Library's staff and collections are not in eminent danger; the media
characterization of the buildings as ``fire traps'' is an exaggeration.
The Library implemented a plan that corrects all of the issues
identified as our responsibility. About 75 percent of the items
identified by Office of Compliance fall under the Architect's area of
responsibility (1,773 items are under the Architect's purview and 503
are the Library's responsibility). Items that fall under the Library's
responsibility involve issues such as improper storage and blocked
doors--items which are symptoms of overcrowding--and which the
additional space at Fort Meade and Culpeper will help to reduce. By
April 24, 2001, the Library had corrected 92 percent (463) of the
issues under our purview, and we are working with the Architect to
ensure the quickest and best possible resolution of remaining issues.
Question. The Library celebrated its bicentennial last year with a
number of successful events and projects. Dr. Billington, you indicated
that the purpose was not just to celebrate the past but to point toward
the future.
What elements of the Library's bicentennial celebration were the
most important for the future of the Library?
Answer. The Library's Bicentennial's highly successful Gifts to the
Nation program had two facets: first, the Library's gift was the
National Digital Library which digitized 5,000,000 items for the
American people to access and enjoy; and second, the Library brought in
donations and treasures from public. The largest single gift was from
the Kluge Foundation--$60 million to establish a scholarly center and a
$1 million prize in Human Sciences. Other gifts include: Harry A.
Blackmun's papers; the first American Haggadah; a letter of
Beethoven's; a Persian celestial globe; a survey of land in Frederick
County, Virginia, signed by George Washington; and James E. Hinton's
1960's Civil Rights photographs. In addition, 82 nations of world
presented over 1,000 publications--many of them rare or limited edition
items--for ``International Gifts to the Nation Project''.
The Local Legacies Project is a significant and far-reaching
program which involved the Congress, individuals, libraries, and local
organizations throughout nation in celebration of America's richly
diverse culture. Local Legacies teams documented creative arts, crafts,
and customs representing traditional community life: signature events
such as festivals and parades; how communities observe local and
national historical events; and sites and occupations that defined a
community's life. Seventy-seven percent of the Congress--412 of the 535
Members--registered nearly 1,300 Local Legacies projects from every
state, trust, territory, and the District of Columbia. Four thousand
Americans provided 46,000 photographs, written reports, sound and video
recordings, newspaper clippings, posters, and other materials as part
of their projects. Almost 1,000 projects received and are currently in
the process of being included in the American Folklife Center's
collection. A century's end time-capsule, the scenes, sights, and
events of everyday America featured in these projects are a testament
to the uniqueness of our nation and to the pride of its citizens in
their heritage. In appreciation for the contributions of Local Legacies
participants, three days of special tours and opportunities to meet
with Library staff were scheduled in late May. In addition, a festive
reception was held in the Great Hall, attended by two thousand
participants and Members. A sampling of Local Legacies photographs and
project descriptions is available on the Bicentennial Web site
(www.loc.gov/bicentennial/) and fund-raising continues for resources
needed to digitize and put on-line a more complete selection of project
materials.
Question. Congress approved $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2001
budget to start a 30-year mass deacidification project. I understand
the goal of this project is to save approximately 8.5 million books as
well as millions of manuscript sheets.
What is the status of this project? What are your plans for fiscal
year 2002?
Answer. The Library has a very successful Mass Deacidification
Program. To date, we have deacidified over 340,000 books. The current
plan calls for deacidifying at least 100,000 books in fiscal 2001, with
that number increasing to 150,000 books in fiscal 2002. The plan also
includes deacidifying over 1,000,000 sheets of manuscript annually.
Question. The American Folklife Center has a backlog of more than
700,000 unprocessed items, including thousands of items documenting
community culture from every state in the country as part of the Local
Legacies project.
How does the Library plan to address the processing of this
backlog?
Answer. The American Folklife Center's Folk Archive was established
in 1928. There were 167,139 items included in original 1989 arrearage
which built up over time due to insufficient staffing. Recent special
projects, such as the ``Local Legacies'', have resulted in large
amounts of materials being received by the Center in a relatively short
period of time. The Library's fiscal 2002 budget request includes
funding for five new archival positions, to achieve a full archival
staff that is expected to process approximately 80,000 items per year.
The additional staff will not eliminate completely the backlog;
some level of arrearage will remain constant as new collections arrive
and others are processed. The additional staff will reduce and manage
the backlog. In particular, the staff will enable the Center to keep
abreast of backlog by reducing the time between acquisition and public
access to six to eight months, which is a reasonable delay. Without the
requested funding for the additional staff, unprocessed items could
double to approximately 1.5 million items.
Question. Dr. Billington, in October 2000, Congress approved an
oral history program to collect video and audio histories of veterans
of our Armed Forces who served during a period of war. The Library's
fiscal year 2002 budget request includes an increase of $249,776 to
begin developing the nationwide partnership program called for in the
authorizing legislation.
What steps is the Library taking to implement this program?
Answer. The Veterans Oral History Act passed unanimously in both
Houses, included authorization to spend $250,000 in first year. The
Library's fiscal 2002 request includes $250,000 ``seed money'' that
will allow the Center to hire nine essential staff positions to
establish the congressionally mandated Veterans History Project and to
fulfill the Center's core mission to preserve and protect our priceless
heritage of grassroots American cultural life by: beginning
construction on the project database; printing and disseminating a
``Collectors Kit''; and convening experts and partner organizations.
Right now, fifteen hundred World War II veterans die every day--we
cannot wait any longer. The Library will also be raising private money
to support this Congressional initiative, but we need a financial
commitment from Congress to encourage private donations.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. As a new member of the Subcommittee, I look forward to
working with Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Durbin to learn more
about the important provisions of the Legislative Branch. As we all
know, an integral part of the Library's mission is to catalog the rich
contributions made by American authors and innovators. The American
Folklife Center expands that to the documentation of contributions to
the rich tapestry of Americana made by everyday Americans in their
daily living. For instance, the Center has worked in my state of South
Dakota to preserve the pow-wows of Native Americans, which are
currently recorded on fragile wax cylinders. For the past twenty years,
the Folklife Center has received a static level of funding of $1
million. Last year, Congress added the Veterans' Oral History Project
to the work done by the Folklife Center.
What impact does this new mandate have on the Center and its
financial ability to carry out its other archival and documentary
functions?
Answer. The Veterans' Oral History Project (now named the Veterans
History Project) will have an enormous impact upon the small staff and
limited resources of the American Folklife Center. This large and
ambitious project was mandated through Public Law 106-380, passed
unanimously by both Houses of Congress last fall. The project has been
greeted enthusiastically by veterans organizations, oral historians,
folklorists, and private citizens around the country. The potential
partners for this project together have a member base of over 10
million possible participants, representing an enormous grassroots
interest. The Veterans History Project includes both programmatic
activities of outreach, education, and coordination, as well as
collection-building activities such as preservation, processing,
storage, and reference. Already, Folklife Center staff have been
assigned to planning for this national project, and preparations are
underway for handling the important historical materials that will be
created and deposited at the Center. In addition, the Center has
recently received several other outstanding grassroots collections of
enormous size (the Local Legacies Project Collection; the International
Storytelling Center Archive; and the archives of the National Council
for the Traditional Arts and the National Heritage Fellows of the
National Endowment for the Arts). These new and important collections
have stretched the Center's limited resources and staffing beyond
capacity. The Center's fiscal 2002 request will allow us to hire nine
essential staff positions to establish the congressionally mandated
Veterans History Project and to fulfill the Center's core mission to
preserve and protect our priceless heritage of grassroots American
cultural life.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., Wednesday, May 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room S-128, the
Capitol, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.
Present. Senator Bennett.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ROBERT T. MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
CHARLES C. COOK, SUPERINTENDENT, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER
ANDREW M. SHERMAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OPENING STATEMENT OF Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order. I'm
informed that Senator Durbin and Senator Johnson may not be
able to join us because of unavoidable conflicts this morning.
We hope that they can, but we will go ahead. And, without
objection, their statements for the record will be included in
today's hearing, and any questions they have for the witnesses
will be submitted to you in writing if they don't show. We ask
that you respond accordingly. Thank you.
Now, we welcome Michael DiMario, the Public Printer. And I
understand that, Mr. DiMario, you have Robert Mansker, Deputy
Public Printer--these are familiar faces--Francis Buckley,
Superintendent of Documents, Charles Cook, Superintendent of
Congressional Printing Management Division, and William Guy,
the GPO's Budget Officer.
Mr. DiMario. And I also brought with me Andrew Sherman, the
Director of our Congressional and Public Affairs Office.
Senator Bennett. Okay, very good. Now, for fiscal year
2002, the Government Printing Office is requesting a total of
$126.5 million, which breaks down to $90.9 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, $29.6 million
for salaries and expenses, $6 million for the revolving fund, a
total increase of $27.3 million, or 27.6 percent, over fiscal
year 2001. This is a substantial increase over what was
appropriated for the year 2001. A majority of it is within one
account, the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation.
And some will be surprised by a 27-percent increase, and I
expect you will address that and talk to us about it.
So, Mr. DiMario, with that, let us hear from you. And
again, welcome to the committee.
OPENING REMARKS OF MICHAEL F. DIMARIO
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It's a pleasure to appear before you to present
the request of the Government Printing Office for
appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
As you have noted, with me are the Deputy Public Printer,
Bob Mansker, Francis Buckley, the Superintendent of Documents,
Bill Guy, our Budget Officer, Charlie Cook, the Superintendent
of Congressional Printing Management, and Andrew Sherman, the
Director of Congressional and Public Affairs.
With your permission, I will briefly summarize my prepared
statement, which has been submitted for the record.
Senator Bennett. Please do.
Mr. DiMario. As you've indicated, for fiscal year 2002,
we're requesting a total of $126.5 million. This includes $90.9
million for the Congressional Printing and Binding
Appropriation, $29.6 million for the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, and $6
million for GPO's revolving fund, principally to replace our
aging air-conditioning system. Our requested increase, while
more than the President's targeted four-percent increase for
fiscal year 2002, is primarily to ensure that enough
Congressional Printing and Binding funds are available to cover
congressional work. The requested increase includes $9.9
million to fund a prior year's shortfall and a $9.5 million
adjustment to ensure that sufficient funding is available for
fiscal year 2002. Otherwise, we project that congressional
printing costs for fiscal year 2002 will increase by about
$200,000 over fiscal year 2001.
For the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, we are asking
for a modest increase to fund eight additional staff in our
Cataloging and Indexing and Federal Depository Library
Programs, and for electronic information service improvements.
At the direction of the conferees on the fiscal year 2001
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, we have advised
depository libraries that online formats are now the primary
means of dissemination in the program. We are continuing to
transition the publications made available to depository
libraries to electronic formats as quickly as we can without
jeopardizing public access to titles for which there are no
dependable electronic equivalents.
We are asking for $6 million to replace our air-
conditioning system. This project was recommended last year in
an energy audit of GPO conducted by the GAO at the request of
the Joint Committee on Printing. The audit said GPO is in
urgent need of upgrading its air-conditioning system, which
consists of chillers that have outlived their useful lives and
are leaking coolants containing CFCs that are harmful to the
environment and which can no longer be legally manufactured.
They are energy inefficient and are at high risk of failure.
GAO also recommended that we install more energy-efficient
lighting throughout GPO.
We are seeking a direct appropriation to finance these
projects. Otherwise, they will have to be financed through the
revolving fund, which will require us to reimburse the fund
through rate adjustments. The installation of our air-
conditioning system in the early 1970s was funded by direct
appropriations. As you will recall, the Senate included funding
for this system in its recommendation for GPO for fiscal year
2000.
Finally, we're seeking two legislative changes. The first
is a 3-year extension of our current retirement-incentive
authority, which includes early-out and buyout authority. We
have had this authority since fiscal year 1999, and it will
expire at the end of this fiscal year. We have utilized the
early-out authority to effect 71 retirements achieving a
savings of more than $3.5 million.
We have not used the buyout authority to date, but the
ongoing downward trend in document sales due to the Internet is
causing continuing losses in our self-financing sales program.
We may need this authority in the future to adjust the sales
workforce levels to a more appropriate size.
The second change we are seeking is an adjustment to the
statutory pay for the Public Printer and the Deputy Public
Printer to restore parity with other legislative branch agency
heads and deputies. As an appointee of the previous
administration, I make this request not for myself, but for the
interest of future GPO leaders.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have worked
with you over the past several years. Your leadership and
guidance have been invaluable to GPO, and I personally have
always appreciated the courtesy you have shown me in my
dealings with you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. DiMario
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here this morning to present the results of Government Printing Office
(GPO) operations for the past year and to request appropriations for
fiscal year 2002.
RESULTS OF 2000
GPO began the fiscal year with its second consecutive annual
designation as the Nation's leading in-plant printing operation, a
tribute to the continuing efforts and dedication of its skilled
workforce. Noting that 2000 marked GPO's 139th year, the December 1999
issue of In-Plant Graphics magazine reported that ``GPO has drastically
changed itself over the past few years from a strictly ink-on-paper
provider to a high-tech digital data delivery organization.'' We earned
our third consecutive designation as the Nation's leading in-plant in
the December 2000 issue of In-Plant Graphics. In between these two
designations, GPO engaged in a number of high-tech online and print
activities that supported Congress and Federal agencies, and which
helped keep America informed.
Improving public access to electronic Government information was a
major focus of our activities in 2000. By arrangement with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, GPO was the outlet for all
documents issued by the Court during the Microsoft case in both online
and print formats. GPO provided technical support and hosting
technology for the Supreme Court's new Web site, which later in the
year was the focus of intense public scrutiny with the release of the
Court's decisions in the Florida election case. Following the direction
of the conferees on the fiscal year 2001 Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill, we set new policies for accelerating the
transition of GPO's Federal Depository Library Program to an
increasingly online basis--a transition that has been underway since
1996. Earlier this year, GPO Access, our Internet information service
(www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess), was used to release the President's budget
documents for fiscal year 2002.
GPO also launched new partnerships with the Department of Energy
and the National Library of Medicine to create new online links to
scientific and technical as well as medical information, and continued
talks with legislative, executive, judicial branch agencies toward the
development of effective strategies for ensuring permanent public
access in this electronic age. Technology improvements included
installing a new T3 fiber optic Internet connection to handle the
increased demand for public access to Government information on GPO
Access, and investigation of public key infrastructure (PKI) technology
to enhance security. Currently, GPO Access is being used by the public
each month to retrieve about 30 million documents published by all
three branches of the Government.
GPO's printing functions had a strong year in 2000. We continued to
support Congress with the daily production--in both print and
electronic formats--of the Congressional Record as well as the bills,
reports, hearings, and other documents needed by the legislative
process. Daily production of essential executive publications such as
the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, passports, and other
items continued as well. Our printing procurement program was a major
participant in Census 2000, placing more than 80 contracts worth more
than $65 million with dozens of private sector printing contractors
across 17 states for the forms and other materials needed in the
conduct of Nation's decennial headcount.
During the year, we worked closely with the Joint Congressional
Committee on the Inauguration to prepare the programs, tickets, and
other materials needed for the inaugural ceremony in January 2001, and
on behalf of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs we produced
the 2000 edition of U.S. Government Policy and Supporting Positions--
the so-called ``Plum Book''--that draws a great deal of attention with
the change of Administrations. We also revised and published a new
edition of the GPO Style Manual, meeting public demand for this widely-
used document.
GPO received an ``unqualified opinion'' on its financial statements
for fiscal year 2000 following a comprehensive, independent audit of
its financial operations by KPMG LLP. This is the highest level of
assurance that an audit firm can give on an organization's financial
statements. Fiscal year 2000 was the fourth consecutive year that we
have received such an opinion since an annual audit requirement for GPO
was enacted by Congress in 1996.
Our financial statements reflect that GPO completed fiscal year
2000 with a consolidated under-recovery of $115,000 on total revenues
of $807.5 million, a margin of about one-one hundredth of 1 percent, a
significant improvement over the previous year. GPO undertook a major
cost-reduction effort in 2000 with the consolidation of warehouse
facilities for publications and paper, a move that will save more than
$5 million over the next 5 years. Staffing levels also continued to
decline through attrition, falling by 121 full-time equivalents (FTE's)
during the year.
After eight years of service as Public Printer, I am pleased to
report that GPO has come a long way over the past decade, successfully
transitioning itself from a conventional printing and hard-copy
distribution facility staffed by nearly 5,000 employees to a ``high-
tech digital data delivery organization'' with 3,100 staff serving
Congress, Federal agencies, the courts, and the public. Along the way,
we developed one of the Government's early online dissemination
efforts, GPO Access, into a comprehensive service that today links
millions of Americans in their offices, homes, schools, and libraries
with information provided by all three branches of their Federal
Government.
GPO's traditional operations have changed, too. An independent
management review by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. in 1998 found that GPO
``effectively satisfies its priority congressional customers and meets
the variable demands and outputs requested by Congress,'' provides a
printing procurement service that customer agencies view as ``an
example of `government at its best,' '' and successfully meets
Government and public expectations for electronic information
dissemination. The scope of the transition at GPO over the past ten
years has marked the 1990's as perhaps the single most dramatic decade
of change in this agency's history.
However, the successes of the past decade have come at a price.
There has been an ongoing decline in GPO's sales of publications, due
principally to the increasing availability of titles on the Internet.
GPO had proposed a consolidation of the Government's publications
dissemination functions in 1999 for economy purposes, but in the
absence of any action on that proposal we have been compelled to begin
downsizing actions for our sales program. In another area, decade-long
employment reductions have forced GPO's employees to do more with less,
and many critical areas are now operating understaffed. Increased
recruitment, training, and associated measures will be necessary in the
coming years to ensure the continued strength of GPO's workforce.
Finally, while the drive to make more Government publications
available electronically has benefited millions, it has also raised new
issues with respect to security, authenticity, permanence, and equity
that have yet to be resolved. Addressing these will require the
effective use of technology, the development of innovative partnerships
with both Government and non-governmental organizations, and broad
consultation and cooperation with Congress, Federal agencies, and the
public. Fortunately, these are strategies that GPO has already begun
deploying based on our commitment to ``Keeping America Informed.'' We
look forward to continuing to serve Congress, Federal agencies, and the
public.
GPO'S FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
For fiscal year 2002, the Government Printing Office (GPO) is
requesting a total of $126.5 million: $90.9 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, $29.6 million for the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents,
and $6 million for GPO's revolving fund, to remain available until
expended, for the replacement of our air-conditioning system.
Our request represents an increase of $27.3 million, or 27.6
percent, over the amount approved for fiscal year 2001 (net of the 0.22
percent rescission for all programs covered by the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001). While in excess of the
President's targeted 4 percent increase for fiscal year 2002, our
requested increase is primarily to ensure that sufficient Congressional
Printing and Binding funds are available to cover work charged against
that appropriation. The requested increase includes $9.9 million for
Congressional Printing and Binding to fund a prior year (fiscal year
2000) shortfall in that appropriation, and a $9.5 million adjustment to
the fiscal year 2001 base to ensure that sufficient funding is
available for fiscal year 2002. The requested increase also includes $6
million for air conditioning and lighting improvements that were
recommended last year in an energy audit of GPO conducted by the
General Accounting Office at the request of the Joint Committee on
Printing. The balance of the requested increase, or $1.9 million, is
for projected price level and workload increases.
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation.--The
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation covers the costs of
congressional printing such as the Congressional Record, bills,
reports, hearings, documents, and other products. It is critical to the
maintenance and operation of our in-plant capacity, which is structured
to serve Congress's information product needs. This appropriation also
covers database preparation work on congressional publications
disseminated online via GPO Access.
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of
Documents.--The Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation pays for those documents distribution programs and
related functions mandated by law. The majority of the appropriation is
for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), under which
congressional and other Government publications and information
products are disseminated to more than 1,300 academic, public, Federal,
law and other libraries nationwide where they are available for the
free use of the public. While some of the funding for the FDLP is for
salaries and benefits, most is for printing and disseminating
publications (including publications in CD-ROM and online formats,
which are now the majority of items in the program) to depository
libraries. Related statutory functions covered by this appropriation
are cataloging and indexing, by-law distribution, and the international
exchange distribution of U.S. Government publications. Finally, through
the FDLP, this appropriation provides the majority of funding for the
operation of GPO Access. GPO's other major documents distribution
functions--the sales program and agency distribution services--are
funded by revenues earned and receive no appropriated funds.
CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING APPROPRIATION
Our request for $90.9 million for the Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation consists of two primary components: funding to
cover Congress's estimated printing requirements for fiscal year 2002,
and funding to cover a prior year shortfall in this appropriation. The
shortfall occurred in fiscal year 2000.
[In millions]
Estimated
Category Requirement
Estimated Fiscal Year 2002 Requirements:
Committee hearings............................................ $21.0
Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index,
and the bound Record)....................................... 19.3
Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads,
envelopes, blank paper, and other products)................. 13.1
Bills, resolutions, amendments................................ 8.0
Documents..................................................... 4.2
Committee Reports............................................. 3.9
Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional
Directory and serial sets).................................. 3.8
Business and Committee Calendars.............................. 3.0
Details to Congress........................................... 2.0
Committee Prints.............................................. 1.7
Document Envelopes and Franks................................. 1.0
______
Subtotal.................................................... 81.0
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 2000 Shortfall........................................ 9.9
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 90.9
Fiscal Year 2002 Estimated Requirements.--We estimate that
Congress's printing requirements for fiscal year 2002 will be
comparable to those for fiscal year 2001: $81 million for fiscal year
2002 compared with $80.8 million for fiscal year 2001. We project an
increase in the cost of congressional printing of about 4 percent due
to projected contractual wage increases as well as higher costs for
materials and supplies. However, we anticipate that these cost
increases, as well as projected workload increases for some product
categories (business and committee calendars; bills, resolutions and
amendments; committee reports; documents; and hearings), will be
substantially offset by workload decreases in other product categories,
including miscellaneous publications (primarily because the printing of
the U.S. Code will be charged to fiscal year 2001), miscellaneous
printing and binding, and committee prints. The net increase for price
level changes and workload for fiscal year 2002 will be approximately
$200,000.
In order to fully fund the estimated work for fiscal year 2002, it
has been necessary for us to adjust the current year (fiscal year 2001)
base by approximately $9.5 million. This adjustment reflects the
difference between the amount appropriated for the current year ($71.3
million) and the amount of work we anticipate that Congress will
actually require ($80.8 million). While a shortfall in the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation for fiscal year 2001
is projected to occur, we are not requesting funding to cover it in
this appropriation request. We will make that request in the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003, because we will not know the exact
amount of the shortfall until after fiscal year 2001 closes out.
Fiscal Year 2000 Shortfall.--GPO's Congressional Printing and
Binding Appropriation covers the costs of the information products and
services required by Congress itself. GPO can charge against this
appropriation only when Congress orders work from us. We charge what it
costs us to perform the work. The amount of the Congressional Printing
and Binding Appropriation is based on GPO's best estimates of how much
work Congress is likely to order, according to prior experience and
anticipated changes in costs and projected workload.
While GPO makes every effort to develop accurate estimates for the
appropriation, sometimes the amount of work Congress orders varies from
the estimate. The attached chart compares actual workload to
appropriated amounts for the past 5 fiscal years. Variances between
actual and appropriated funding occur for a variety of reasons:
sometimes Congress operates on a reduced legislative schedule as the
result of unanticipated circumstances, or sometimes there is an
unforeseen increase in legislative printing requirements, as during the
impeachment proceedings in early fiscal year 1999.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Variances mean that GPO may end up providing more or less work and
charging more or less against the appropriation than was provided,
resulting in either a shortfall or unused funds. In cases where more
work is ordered than is funded, legislative language under the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation authorizes us to
charge our current year appropriation for prior year obligations. Thus,
we have been charging the overflow of congressional work ordered in
fiscal year 2000--for which fiscal year 2000 funds have run out--
against fiscal year 2001 funds. This appropriations language was
recommended by the General Accounting Office to provide for the
uninterrupted flow of work by GPO for Congress. However, if this
shortfall situation were allowed to continue, we would eventually
exhaust our current year appropriation in order to pay for prior year
work. To prevent this, we seek a restoration of the funds equal to the
shortfall through subsequent appropriations. In cases where Congress
orders less work than we estimated, the funds lapse to the Treasury
after remaining available for work charged to the specific year for
which they were appropriated, for a period of five years.
Congress addressed the shortfall problem in part last year. In the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, we were
authorized to transfer available unused funds from up to five prior
years to the current year to help offset any shortfall in our
appropriations, with the approval of the Appropriations Committees. We
applied for this approval in January 2001 but have not received a final
answer. If the transfer is approved, we will be able to use excess
funds from prior years to eliminate a substantial part of the
shortfalls that have accumulated since fiscal year 1996. However, the
transfer will still leave $9.9 million in the shortfall for fiscal year
2000 uncovered. As a result, we are seeking a restoration of that
amount to our revolving fund.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES APPROPRIATION
The programs covered by our request of $29.6 million for the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents
are as follows:
[In millions]
Estimated
Program Requirements
Federal Depository Library Program................................ $24.2
Cataloging and Indexing Program................................... 4.3
International Exchange Program.................................... .7
By-Law Distribution Program....................................... .4
______
Total....................................................... 29.6
Mandatory pay increases and price level changes represent $835,000
of the total requested increase. Mandatory pay increases account for
$439,000 of this amount. We are requesting $396,000 to cover price
level changes at the anticipated rate of inflation of approximately 2
percent.
An increase of $644,000 over the current year base is requested for
workload changes. We are requesting 8 additional staff under this
appropriation: 6 in the Cataloging and Indexing program to provide
necessary additional support in discovering and cataloging online
Government information as well as modernizing the cataloging system,
and 2 to work with the FDLP's Electronic Collection. We also need
increased funds for equipment and services to enhance our data
archiving capabilities and refresh essential legislative and regulatory
online files. These new costs will be substantially offset by projected
decreases in funding for depository and international exchange printing
due to the continuing migration of formats to electronic dissemination,
and by associated reductions in contractual mail transportation
(currently performed through UPS Ground).
We are also requesting an increase of $267,000 in depreciation due
to an increase in asset acquisitions, primarily automated information
systems in support of the FDLP.
Transition to More Electronic Dissemination.--The transition to a
more electronic FDLP is continuing, as projected in the Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (June 1996) (as required
by Congress in the Legislative Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1996). Throughout fiscal year 2000, staff of GPO's Library Programs
Service (LPS), which manages the FDLP, searched the Web for online
versions of Government publications for inclusion in the FDLP
Electronic Collection. As a result, 53 percent of the 61,155 new FDLP
titles made available during fiscal year 2000 were disseminated
electronically. In January 2000, GPO began its own electronic archive
to assure permanent public access to those agency products disseminated
solely online from agency Web sites. To date in fiscal year 2001, 62
percent of the new titles available to the public through the FDLP have
been online. Through its electronic information dissemination
component, the FDLP now delivers more content to users than ever
before.
Last year, the conferees on H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, directed that ``emphasis
should be on streamlining the distribution of traditional copies of
publications which may include providing online access and less
expensive electronic formats.'' GPO responded to that direction
immediately. In August 2000, the Superintendent of Documents wrote to
the directors of all Federal depository libraries, advising them that
online information would be the primary means of dissemination for the
FDLP, and that most publications would be disseminated solely online.
In October 2000, at the beginning of fiscal year 2001, GPO amended over
100 agency term printing contracts to eliminate the requirement for
paper copies for FDLP distribution. In January 2001, the Superintendent
of Documents issued policy guidance (produced with library community
input) to assist GPO staff in determining which products should be
disseminated solely online.
GAO Study.--The conferees on H.R. 4516 also directed the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a ``comprehensive study on the
impact of providing documents to the public solely in electronic
format,'' and to evaluate the feasibility of transferring the FDLP to
the Library of Congress (LC). The study was published recently by the
GAO as Information Dissemination: Electronic Dissemination of
Government Publications (GAO-01-428). I provided comments on the draft
report and transmitted copies of those comments to the Chairman and
Members of this Subcommittee as well as other Members of the House and
Senate.
As I stated in my comments, the day is coming when Federal
Government information may be made available to the public solely in
electronic format, but that day is not here yet nor is it likely to
appear in the foreseeable future. Apart from the fact that large
amounts of Federal information are not digitized, significant issues
concerning security, permanence, authentication, equity, and cost
remain to be resolved before the American people can put their faith in
an electronic dissemination system that will serve as one of the
foundations of their social contract with the Government.
Unfortunately, the draft report's attention to these and related issues
is simply too cursory to resolve them.
As I also stated, LC is a unique national institution of singular
importance to Congress and the public. As a sister legislative branch
agency, GPO has a longstanding relationship with LC that we value very
highly; LC is a selective depository library and by-law distribution
recipient, and we work together on many issues of importance in the
field of Government information dissemination. With all due respect,
however, LC is not an appropriate home for the FDLP. Its mission and
operations are inconsistent with a large-scale publications/information
dissemination program. Transferring the FDLP there will increase costs,
impose additional burdens on LC, and not result in any improvement in
the public's ability to access Government information.
REVOLVING FUND
Fiscal Year 2000 Financial Performance.--GPO completed fiscal year
2000 with an under-recovery of $115,000 on $807.5 million in total
revenues, compared with an under-recovery of $5 million on $765 million
for fiscal year 1999. The under-recovery was financed by retained
earnings and did not place GPO in an anti-deficiency position or
require additional appropriations. During the year, an audit of GPO's
financial reports and systems for fiscal year 2000 was conducted by
KPMG LLP, under contract with GAO. The audit resulted in a clean
opinion for GPO.
Sales Program.--The primary cause of the under-recovery was in our
sales program, which is funded entirely by revenues earned on sales of
publications. The free availability of publications on GPO Access and
other Government web sites has contributed to reduced sales of printed
products, although other factors, including reduced agency publishing
and competition from other sales organizations, both public and
private, have also contributed to reduced sales. The losses have been
temporarily financed through our revolving fund and we are taking
actions to address them. We have made price adjustments and have
reduced costs where possible through staff attrition and related
measures.
We have also developed a plan that includes closing several of
GPO's retail bookstores nationwide. Most of these stores were
established in the 1970's. Closing these stores will reduce costs, and
we project we will be able to retain most store revenues through our
online, fax, phone, and mail order operations. At the same time,
localized access to Government information will be preserved through
Federal depository libraries as well as free Internet availability.
We have taken steps to initiate closings of three stores: our
McPherson Square store in Washington, DC (one of three in the
metropolitan area) and our stores in Boston and San Francisco (both of
whose leases are about to expire and which are experiencing staff
declines). We have notified the respective House and Senate delegations
for these stores about our plans, and we are prepared to seek final
approval for the closures from the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP),
which must approve all GPO facility-related changes under the terms of
a 1982 JCP resolution. Additional store closings are currently under
consideration.
Beyond these efforts, we may be compelled to take additional
measures to reduce the sales program. An additional management tool is
available to GPO through early-out/buy-out authority provided to us for
three years by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1999. That authority is set to expire September 30, 2001, and we
request an extension for an additional three years because significant
employee downsizing action in the sales program may become necessary.
GPO cannot effect any reduction-in-force without the prior approval of
the JCP, pursuant its 1982 resolution.
Air Conditioning System.--Our appropriations submission includes a
request for $6 million for the revolving fund, to be available until
expended, to cover the cost of necessary improvements to GPO's air
conditioning and lighting systems.
Our air conditioning system is in critical need of replacement. An
energy audit of GPO, concluded in July 2000 by the GAO at the request
of the JCP, found that
GPO is in urgent need of upgrading its air conditioning
system, which consists of chillers that (1) have outlived their
useful lives, (2) use and are leaking coolants that contain
chlorofluorocarbons that are harmful to the environment and
which can no longer be legally manufactured, (3) are energy
inefficient, and (4) are at high risk of failure. (Letter from
Bernard L. Ungar, Director, Government Business Operations
Issues, GAO, to Chairman William M. Thomas, Joint Committee on
Printing, July 24, 2000.) (emphasis added)
An independent contractor recommended by GAO, Aspen Systems
Corporation, estimated the cost of a new system best suited to our
needs to be approximately $4.4 million. GAO said we could save over
$400,000 annually with the new, more energy efficient chillers. We are
awaiting final approval for a new air conditioning system from the JCP,
under the provisions of a 1987 JCP resolution requiring GPO to obtain
prior approval for all capital improvements valued at more than
$50,000. On the recommendation of GAO, we also plan to install more
energy-efficient lighting throughout GPO, at an estimated cost of
approximately $1.6 million. New, more efficient lighting systems would
yield annual savings of approximately $800,000.
We are seeking a direct appropriation to finance both of these
projects. Without a direct appropriation, financing this extraordinary
capital expense through the revolving fund--either by direct purchase
from retained earnings in the fund or by financing it through projected
energy savings--will require us to reimburse the fund through rate
adjustments. As this expense is not directly related to the provision
of printing and information product services, its impact on our rate
structure will be detrimental to our ability to carry out our mission
to provide cost-effective and economical products and services. The
savings from these energy products will help keep down the costs that
we must recover through our rates.
We are aware of finance programs that allow Federal agencies to
undertake energy saving projects without having to pay for the projects
up front. However, these programs are more expensive than direct
purchase because agencies must pay a financing fee. GAO itself stated
that ``the final cost of the new chillers would be higher if a
financing program was used instead of purchasing the chillers
outright.'' Accordingly, we believe a direct appropriation is the best
way to minimize the impact of this cost on the Government. A direct
appropriation would also be consistent with past practice. The
installation of our air conditioning system in the early 1970's was
funded by direct appropriations to the revolving fund. As you will
recall, the Senate included funding for this system in its
recommendation for GPO for fiscal year 2000.
FTE Level.--We are requesting a statutory ceiling on employment of
3,260 FTE's. This is a decrease of 25 from the previous year, and
reflects a reduction of 33 FTE's in the sales program with an increase
of the 8 FTE's requested for the Superintendent of Documents Salaries
and Expenses programs. As the attached chart shows, total GPO FTE's
dropped 37 percent between fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 2000, 35
percent in past eight years alone. GPO is now at its lowest employment
point in the past century, principally due to our use of electronic
information technology.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Legislative Changes.--In addition to an extension of the early-out/
buy-out authority, we are requesting a change to section 303 of Title
44, regarding the pay of the Public Printer and the Deputy Public
Printer, in order to maintain pay parity with other comparable
legislative branch officials as well as appropriate comparability with
senior congressional staff. We are providing new information on this
matter to our legislative oversight committees. Changes in the pay
levels for the Public Printer and Deputy Public Printer have been
provided through the appropriations process, as they last were in the
early 1990's.
Audit Recommendations Status Report.--Consistent with the
requirement contained in House Report 105-734, accompanying H.R. 4112,
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, we have
submitted the third and final annual report on the status of actions to
implement the recommendations contained in the management audit of GPO,
conducted in 1998 by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
The latest report shows that GPO either plans to act, is currently
acting, or has acted affirmatively on 77 percent of the recommendations
contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton final audit report. These
include recommendations on planning, program modernization, ensuring
financial stability, promoting intra-agency communications, and
improving information technology capabilities.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. DiMario. We
appreciate that. You're talking about the early out and buyout
authority because of downward trends in headcount or employment
needs. As you talk about these lower workforce levels, though,
you are talking about increased money. You need more money to
make up a shortfall. Can you reconcile these two, give us an
understanding as to why the need for money is going up, while
the need for workforce is going down.
Mr. DiMario. These needs address two separate programs. The
need for money is primarily because Congress did not give us
enough money in previous years to do the congressional printing
work that was required to be done. We, nevertheless, performed
the work. Under the existing law, we are authorized to go to
the current fiscal year to use the money appropriated to pay
for previous fiscal years. And that is what we have been doing.
We are asking to have the money restored so that we can pay
back the fiscal year 2000 monies that we need. Last year, you
authorized us to use surpluses that had been appropriated in
1997 and 1998 and had not been spent, in part to pay back those
monies. And we have asked to do that. But even if we do that,
we come up with a shortfall in the previous fiscal year, and
we're using current-year monies to fund those obligations. So
we're asking for the $9.9 million for that unfunded fiscal year
2000 shortfall.
We are also asking for $9.5 million to adjust the fiscal
year 2001 base. So that would bring us back up to the level
that we should be at in that year, anticipating the workloads
for 2001. In addition to that, we are asking for $2.9 million
to cover mandatory pay and price-level increases. We offset
that, in part, because there is a reduction of $2.7 million in
workload from fiscal year 2001 due, primarily, to the printing
of the new 2000 edition of the U.S. Code this year. So those
two figures are a near wash, the $2.9 million and the $2.7
million, and that is where our $19.6 million increase comes in.
The true increase that we're asking, in terms of the
additional cost to do work, as opposed to funding prior years,
is $200,000 in Congressional Printing and Binding, so it's well
within the four-percent guidelines.
The request in the Superintendent of Documents' Office is
where we made reference to the need to use the buyout
authority. That authority is needed for our sales program,
which is a self-funding operation. We receive no appropriations
for it whatsoever. Because of our success with GPO Access where
we put up all of these electronic files, where we now have some
32 million publications a month being downloaded from the
system, we have experienced an enormous decline in the sales of
publications. We went from an $80 million program to a $40
million program. We are trying to manage our operation with
that decline in revenue in mind, but our workforce is geared at
a higher level, and the attrition we have been experiencing has
not been enough to offset that.
So by continuing to have the buyout authority, plus the
early-out authority, we are hoping to manage that reduction
we're experiencing. We're not getting the revenues in the door.
Even aggressive marketing programs are not doing it. The Sales
Program is out of a different side of the house, if you would.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Could we get a chart that outlines
all of what you just said?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. In other words, how much in 2000 was
covered by old surpluses? You talk about surpluses back to
1997. How much was covered by old surpluses? How much was
covered by the appropriation that you got for 2000? And then
there was still an overrun beyond that--taking money out of the
current year to cover that.
Mr. DiMario. In our prepared statement, we included such a
chart. Bill can explain it to you.
Mr. Guy. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, but primarily in
1997, the appropriation exceeded requirements. It turned out
that Congress didn't need as much as what was set aside. That
situation reversed in 1999 and 2000.
In the 1950s, Congress realized this could happen, and the
solution, which was recommended by GAO, was to allow the
current-year appropriation to be charged for prior-year
shortfalls as a temporary measure.
Senator Bennett. This is separate from the revolving fund?
Mr. Guy. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. What role does the revolving fund play, if
any?
Mr. Guy. Temporarily, we finance everything through the
revolving fund. This appropriation is used to reimburse the
revolving fund for the cost of congressional work, as other
agencies reimburse the revolving fund for the cost of their
work. This appropriation is an annual appropriation, and the
purpose of it is to support the Congress.
Senator Bennett. You've got a spike in requirements in
2000. Is that because of the printing of the U.S. Code?
Mr. Guy. No, sir.
Senator Bennett. And then it comes back down in 2001.
Mr. Guy. Yes.
Senator Bennett. And you're projecting that 2002 will be
level--except for the $200,000, essentially level?
Mr. DiMario. Yes. Now, we also indicate in our statement
that we anticipate asking next year, again, for the funding of
the shortfall that we're anticipating this year and that's not
in this request. We will know better at the end of the year
what that number is, and we will ask for that shortfall
funding.
Senator Bennett. You have a request, which presumably could
make another bar on the chart for 2002. Where does it come?
Mr. Guy. That comes from----
Senator Bennett. No, where on the chart? How high would
that bar be?
Mr. Guy. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $90.9
million in total. That additional bar on top of the $81 million
for fiscal year 2002 requirements would be for the $9.9 million
shortfall from fiscal year 2000. The reprinting of the United
States Code is going to be charged to 2001. It is the 2000
edition of the Code, but it's actually going to be printed this
year and will be charged to 2001.
Senator Bennett. So what causes the spike in 2000 if it
doesn't include the code?
Mr. Guy. Sir, that was due to workload increases as well as
COLAs. Looking at the chart, it went from about $80 million in
fiscal year 1999 to about $85 million in fiscal year 2000.
Senator Bennett. Yeah, but what I don't follow here--you're
in 1999 at $80; you go up to $85--in 2000, which is 6-percent,
7-percent increase. You come back down to $80--in 2001, and yet
you say the printing of the U.S. Code, a one-time event, is
included in the 2001 figure.
Mr. Guy. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. I don't understand. Why the spike in 2000?
Is there a single event that caused it? Why should there be a
spike in a year where there is not an unusual event, like the
printing of the U.S. Code. And then in the year when the
printing of the U.S. Code is, it comes back down.
Mr. Guy. That was not due to any one event that I can put
my finger on, other than general workload in the Congress,
which does vary somewhat by session of Congress and by
presidential election year and many other factors.
Senator Bennett. I can understand that.
Mr. DiMario. This is essentially an appropriation by the
Congress for congressional work that simply gets housed in GPO.
We do not control the volume of work that you're going to
require in the Congress, in either house.
Senator Bennett. I understand you can't control it, but
what I am after here is an ability to forecast it, and nobody
should be in a better position to forecast it than you, because
you've lived with it for a long period of time.
Mr. Mansker. We did have the unusual event of additional
printing for the impeachment. That was a substantial amount of
printing.
Senator Bennett. Can you break it down for me and give me
some numbers? Not here, obviously.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, we certainly can.
[The information follows:]
The volume of hearings increased from 305,000 pages in fiscal year
1999 to 344,000 pages in fiscal year 2000. The volume of bills
increased from 84,000 pages in fiscal year 1999 to 112,000 pages in
fiscal year 2000. The pages of business and committee calendars
increased from 22,000 pages in fiscal year to 35,000 pages in fiscal
year 2000, which is typical of a second session because the calendars
are cumulative.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Guy. In 2002, we have a workload reduction due to the
U.S. Code, but we have an offsetting increase due to pay raises
and mandatory increases which will essentially offset that
savings from not having to redo the Code.
Senator Bennett. Well, from that, then, I would assume that
the cost of doing the Code is roughly the same as a cost-of-
living increase for a year.
Mr. Guy. Yes, sir.
Mr. DiMario. It was about $2.7 million for the Code, versus
$2.9 million for the mandatory pay and price level increases.
Senator Bennett. So the Code is not really that big a deal.
Mr. Guy. It is about 3 percent of total fiscal year 2001
requirements. The Congressional Record and hearings, for
example, together account for about half of total requirements.
Mr. DiMario. We can provide the data that supports the
chart, if it is giving a misleading impression.
Senator Bennett. No, the chart is very helpful in
clarifying your verbal statement, in that I can see now that,
in 1997, the appropriation was higher than you needed. And I'm
sure you forecast a need as high as $80 million in 1997, but--
or we wouldn't have appropriated it. I mean, we don't
deliberately appropriate more than you need.
Mr. DiMario. We attempt to find ``like'' years and do our
appropriations request based on historical data, because each
congressional year is not the same. If there's an election
year, we certainly have, you know, a different work
requirement. And so we look at those workloads, and then we try
to project out----
Senator Bennett. Is it a higher workload in a presidential
election year, as opposed to a congressional election year?
Mr. DiMario. I believe so. Charlie would be the best to
respond--Charlie Cook, who is our congressional printing and
management officer.
Senator Bennett. Is that true, that it is higher in a
presidential year, traditionally?
Mr. Cook. Traditionally, yes, that is so.
Senator Bennett. Does anybody have any reason or thoughts
as to why that is the case, or just that's the way it works
out?
Mr. DiMario. I have no explanation.
REVENUE TRANSACTIONS
Senator Bennett. Well, this assumes that all of the cost is
paid out of appropriations. Is there any revenue? For example,
how much revenue do you make on the sale of the U.S. Code?
Mr. Guy. We do sell some copies of it. Revenue totaled $3.5
million on the sale of the previous 1994 edition.
Mr. DiMario. But that's sold through the Office of the
Superintendent of Document's, and those revenues go into that
self-sustaining sales program. And so they're not included in
here. In other words, those revenues don't come in and offset
the appropriation for congressional printing. At the same time,
we're doing the U.S. Code, we purchase copies of the U.S. Code
by the Office of Superintendent of Documents from the printing
side of the house for our sales program to sell. So we're not
selling those publications, in the sense of making revenue that
would offset----
Senator Bennett. But you say you ``purchase''--I assume
this is a bookkeeping entry.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, that's what it is, and they get it
at a rider rate. They buy it, not at the cost of originally
producing the publication, but at the added cost that it takes
to run additional paper through the equipment. It's at a
reduced rate, and then they're able to offer publications for
sale through the Superintendent of Documents' sales program.
Senator Bennett. I would understand that you would not try
to make an artificial profit on an internal transfer within
GPO, but once again the question arises: Where does the revenue
show up? Is this number stripped of all revenue, and all the
revenue shows up someplace else?
Mr. Guy. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. And is there any additional revenue that
shows up someplace else that can be applied back to this, or
are all other accounts exactly even?
Mr. DiMario. No sir, there is no revenue that can be
applied back. There is a bylaw distribution from this as a
requirement--as an example, to distribute a copy of the U.S.
Code to each Member of the House. Is that correct?
Mr. Guy. The U.S. Code is only distributed to a very small
number of House Members.
Mr. DiMario. But there are none in the Senate.
Mr. Guy. There are no distributions to Senators, but there
is a distribution in the House and the Senate to various
offices that need the United States Code.
Senator Bennett. But somebody in GPO sells it to the
outside world, and some revenue is generated.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, that's the office of the
Superintendent of Documents for sales purposes.
Mr. Buckley. We're paying for copies that we sell, and
we're selling them and getting the revenue back.
Senator Bennett. Presumably you're selling them for more
than you're paying for it.
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buckley. We attempt to cover our expenses involved in
selling them, but the Sales Program is not recovering all costs
from sales revenue at this time.
Mr. Guy. The Superintendent of Documents can purchase
copies at the incremental cost, essentially, the cost of
running the additional copies. That's the charge that goes to
them and----
Mr. DiMario. And that is what we call the ``rider rate.''
Senator Bennett (continuing). They get reimbursed. Let me
tell you what would be useful to me, and I thank you for
putting up with my questions here. Going back to my own
experience as a businessman, I would like to understand all of
this. And at the moment, I don't. So if you could do a similar
kind of analysis to this for each component in GPO so that I
could see appropriations and expenditures for the
Superintendent of Documents, appropriations and expenditures
for each different office, and see where the money comes from,
how much of it comes from appropriations and how much of it
comes from sales, and then what the expenses are that are
charged against that, and then we can put it all together and
see if there's extra money in one pigeon hole that could be
used to offset shortfalls in another pigeon hole and get an
understanding of the whole thing. And then we get into the
revolving fund and the role it plays in this. I've never quite
understood how your books are kept overall, and this discussion
has been a little helpful in getting me closer to that
understanding.
Mr. DiMario. Each agency of government is able to purchase
from us, on a prepublication basis, if you would, publications
at the same rider rate that the Superintendent of Documents
does. So if they anticipate a need for a publication like the
U.S. Code, and we tell them it's going to be published, then
they send us their order, and we sell it to them at the same
rate. That revenue reimburses the cost of producing those
additional copies.
After it's published, if agencies need a publication, they
buy it just like the public, and that revenue reimburses costs
in the sales program.
The bulk of the work that we do for executive agencies is
based on surcharging the cost of the work. So we have over $500
million worth of work that we acquire for the executive branch,
and we charge a surcharge of seven percent. It varies from time
to time. That money then goes to fund the printing procurement
program and overhead. So we can put it all together for you.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
STAFFING REQUEST
Senator Bennett. I would appreciate that kind of detail,
and it would be helpful. You're asking for some additional
people--is there any possibility of transfer of people for whom
you're offering an early-out into vacancies so that you don't
have to do the buyout, or are the skills so completely
different?
Mr. DiMario. They are different. These are very skilled
librarians that we're talking about hiring to do cataloging and
indexing. We need people who are skilled in doing that kind of
thing, and they're not skills that we currently have available.
That is for six of the people. The additional two that makes up
the eight, they also would be required to have technical skills
to reach out and bring in the kinds of work that we're talking
about.
NETWORK SECURITY
Senator Bennett. That is helpful. Have you experienced any
problem with hackers or any attempt at unauthorized access?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. We have anti-intrusion programs on
our GPO access computer systems. We have had attempts in very,
very large numbers, to get into the system.
Senator Bennett. What is your definition of a large number?
Mr. DiMario. In the range of 300,000.
Senator Bennett. 300,000?
Mr. DiMario. Huge numbers. That's over a 4-month period of
time. We have not had any penetrations. We have had one that
got into an html page, one page. It was not consequential. They
did not get beyond the firewall. The firewall protection is
strong. They could alter data on that page. It happens to be a
public page, and it was just not a problem. I'm not saying we
are the most secure, but we have a very, very substantial
system to protect it.
Senator Bennett. So you've had only one instance where
someone actually defaced a page?
Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, during that time frame.
Senator Bennett. During that time frame. I see. Well, thank
you, that is helpful.
I have no further questions. Thank you very much for
coming. We will look forward to these data we talked about.
Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED MATERIAL
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee has received a letter
from the American Library Association which will be placed in
the record at this point.
[The letter follows:]
Letter From the American Library Association
May 24, 2001.
The Honorable Robert Bennett,
Chairman, Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, United
States Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Bennett: The American Library Association is pleased
to submit testimony for the May 16 record on appropriations for the
Government Printing Office. We support the request of the Public
Printer for fiscal year 2002 of $126.5 million: $90.9 million for the
Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, $29.6 million for the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents,
and $6 million for GPO's revolving fund.
The American Library Association's 61,000 school, academic and
public librarians, library trustees and friends of libraries
particularly would point out the need for funding the Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, since the
majority of the appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP), under which congressional and other Government
publications and information products are disseminated to more than
1,300 academic, public, Federal, law and other libraries nationwide.
This account was funded below the requested level in fiscal year 2001,
which impacted the program. It is critical to fund GPO Access, since
there is a greatly expanded use of the system.
The funding shortfall makes it even more critical that the amount
requested for fiscal year 2002 be funded. We appreciate the opportunity
to express to the Subcommittee our thanks for past efforts on behalf of
funding for the Government Printing Office, and we look forward to full
funding of the GPO account this year.
Sincerely,
Emily Sheketoff,
Executive Director, ALA Washington Office.
RESOLUTION ON SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2002 SALARIES AND
EXPENSES APPROPRIATIONS
WHEREAS, Public access to government information is vital to a
democratic society and the economic well-being of the nation and the
American public; and
WHEREAS, The Government Printing Office (GPO) Federal Depository
Library Program (FDLP) reaches the entire nation through the
geographically dispersed system of over 1,300 depository libraries and
is the primary provider of no-fee public access to federal government
information regardless of format; and
WHEREAS, Over 200,000 electronic titles are available to the public
through the award-winning GPO Access system which attracts 26 million
downloads per month; and
WHEREAS, In fiscal year 2000, 47 percent of the new titles GPO
received from government agencies in all three branches and distributed
to depositories were in print and other tangible formats; and
WHEREAS, User needs cannot be met by exclusive electronic
dissemination, thereby requiring GPO to maintain multiple distribution
systems; and
WHEREAS, This request ensures current and permanent public access
to government information through partnership programs with federal
agencies and depository libraries, electronic government information
locator services, and bibliographic control of electronic government
information, as outlined in GPO's ``Managing the FDLP Electronic
Collection: A Policy and Planning Document''; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urge Congress to
fund fully the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents
Salaries and Expenses appropriation for fiscal year 2002 at the level
requested by the Public Printer; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the American Library Association transmit a copy of
this resolution to the Chairs of the House and Senate Legislative
Branch Appropriations Subcommittees, other appropriate House and Senate
committees, and to the Public Printer of the United States.
Adopted by the Council of the American Library Association,
Washington, D.C., January 17, 2001 (Council Document #20.2).
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENE L. DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF MISSION SUPPORT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER
Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Mr. David Walker, the
Comptroller General. And I understand, sir, that accompanying
you are Gene Dodaro, your Chief Operating Officer, Mrs.
Sallyanne Harper, Chief Financial Officer, and Dick Brown, the
GAO's Controller. We have seen you all before, and we welcome
you back, look forward to an open and frank exchange on your
budget requirements.
The GAO fiscal 2002 budget request provides for a
significant increase of 11.2 percent over the amounts enacted
by Congress for the fiscal year 2001. We understand that half
of this amount, roughly, is for scheduled cost-of-living
increases, inflationary increases, and travel and printing
supplies, et cetera, and contract rate increases, and building
operations maintenance, information technology programs, and
the balance of the increase includes the addition of 120 full-
time-equivalent employees, which would bring the total number
to 3275, and then $5.2 million for new GAO responsibilities
created by the Truth in Regulating Act.
So we look forward to your statement in support of this
significant increase and appreciate whatever you have to tell
us.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here again. If I can, let me give you an overview on a few
things, and then we can go to Q and A.
First, I want to touch briefly on the results that the
Congress and the public received from GAO in fiscal year 2000.
It was a record year in a variety of ways. We set records in
almost every major category--$23.2 billion in financial
benefits, a return on investment of $61 for every dollar
invested in us, 263 congressional hearings, and 78 percent of
our recommendations were adopted. All of those were at record
or near-record levels.
But, in addition to that, we made major progress in making
ourselves a model agency, in transforming how we do business
and, frankly, in setting an example for other government
agencies as to how they can go about becoming more results-
oriented and improving outcomes for the American people. We
implemented our congressional protocols, a new strategic plan,
realigned our headquarters, restructured our field offices,
engaged in a number of human capital initiatives, and
implemented a number of risks and matrix management practices.
In 2001, our progress continues. As you know, we issued our
performance accountability and high risk series. We have also
included a presidential and congressional transition section on
our Web site. We're moving to implement our human capital
legislation. This committee and you, in particular, Mr.
Chairman, were helpful in getting us this legislation at the
end of the session. We are realigning our mission support,
moving to a competency-based performance-appraisal system, and
engaging in a number of other activities.
MANDATORY CHANGES
With regard to our fiscal year 2002 budget request, you are
correct that a significant percentage of what we're asking for
represents mandatories, or nondiscretionary items. The 120
FTEs, for the record, do not represent an additional request.
They represent the ability for us to use our full complement.
Basically, we have had authority for 3,275 FTEs for several
years, but because we have not received an adequate
appropriation, we have not been able to staff those positions.
And so, therefore, what we're seeking is to be able to staff at
our authorized level, the reason being is that demand continues
to increase. Supply has been dwindling. Therefore, unless
something gives, at some point in time we're going to have to
modify our policies and practices to the point where ultimately
we may only be able to respond to requests from committees and
subcommittees, rather than also from individual members. At
some point in time, something is going to have to give to be
able to get the supply and demand in balance.
I think it's important to note that the selected
enhancements above and beyond the mandatories are for our
people who represent our most important asset--80 percent of
our costs, 100 percent of our most important assets. We would
like to make a number of targeted investments. For example, we
would like to be able to participate in the tuition
reimbursement program. We think that is very important. The
executive branch has it. We don't want to be at a competitive
disadvantage with the executive branch. We'd like to be able to
offer the transit subsidy, which the executive branch has to
offer by Executive order. We're not automatically covered by
that because we're in the legislative branch. It's not a matter
of whether ``we want to''; we've got to have funding to be able
to do that. We'd like to be able to continue to enhance our
training and enabling technology in order to make us a model
agency.
One of the important things we're trying to achieve under
our strategic plan is being a model agency. We're trying to be
as good or better than any other agency in this government and,
frankly, comparable to private-sector enterprises, as well. In
order for us to be able to do that, we need some targeted
investments to be able to transform how we do things. The
benefit of that is that it will not only help us, but, frankly,
it will help others, because many are looking to us for
leadership and for an example of the way forward.
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is three key messages.
Number one, if you look at our request for fiscal year 2002,
which is about an 11.2 percent increase, that represents
basically making us whole since our mandated downsizing. In
other words, if we had gotten our mandatories, and only our
mandatories, and nothing above our mandatories, since our
downsizing in the 1990s, we would not be asking for any more
money than that. So the increase is basically to try to keep us
whole since our downsizing.
PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
Second, after being in my position now for 2\1/2\ years, I
hear a lot about performance budgeting. I hear a lot about
matching resources to results; but candidly, it hasn't happened
a lot. I'm hoping that we're going to be able to start moving
in that direction. I stand by our record. We have fantastic
results. We've got fantastic people. I would hope that, while
there are overall restraints--and I understand that, and I
respect that, and I know it's tough for you and others to be
able to deal with that--I think it is important that there be
some type of matching of resources to results.
One of the concerns I have is all too frequently in
Washington, we're debating the increment up or the increment
down. The assumption is that the baseline is okay. In many
cases, I don't think the baseline is okay. I can assure you
that what we're trying to do is to make sure that we can do
everything we can to get the most out of whatever resources you
give us. But in the end, I hope that Congress is going to be
able to move towards matching resources to results, because,
quite frankly, I think that is what we need to do. In the
absence of doing that, it's demoralizing to our employees, it
doesn't look good in the press, and it doesn't sound good to
the public, and none of us, I think, like that.
LEADING BY EXAMPLE
Last, just to keep in mind that we are trying to lead by
example in every area--strategic planning, financial
management, information technology, human capital, client
service, and knowledge management. You name it, we're trying to
lead by example. In many cases, we're already there; in others,
we're getting there, and we're going to stay there. But to do
that, in some cases, we need modest investments. If we don't
get them, then not only does it hurt us, but frankly, it has a
broad-based ripple effect. To the extent that others are
looking to us for leadership and for a way forward, then, we
have to slow down our efforts because of resource constraints.
Then, it means others aren't going to benefit from that, as
well.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present
our case. I think our budget team--Dick Brown and his people--
have done an outstanding job putting together this budget
request and we're happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning! As the
Comptroller General of the United States, it is a pleasure to appear
before you today to present the General Accounting Office's (GAO's)
budget request for fiscal year 2002. I am proud to say that we served
the Congress and the American people well in fiscal year 2000. Our work
resulted in substantial financial savings and significant improvements
to government that will benefit all Americans. I am confident that
fiscal year 2001 will be just as productive.
At the outset, I want to thank the Committee for its support in
helping enact GAO's human capital legislation. This legislation will go
a long way toward helping us address many of our human capital
requirements and ensuring that GAO remains prepared to meet the
Congress' needs in the future. We have issued implementing regulations
for the early retirement and scientific and technical staff provisions
and plan to issue authorizing regulations later this year to guide any
potential future buy-outs and reductions-in-force.
GAO's fiscal year 2002 budget request is critical to our continuing
efforts to reorganize and reshape the agency, reengineer our business
processes, and train and equip our staff with up-to-date technology to
help meet Congress' current and future needs. Congressional mandates
and requests continue to represent over 90 percent of our work, and our
workload and productivity remain at near-record levels. Our budget
request represents our needs--not wants--to sustain this level of
effort and support to the Congress.
Since becoming the Comptroller General at the beginning of fiscal
year 1999, GAO's appropriations have been insufficient to fund
mandatory and inflation expenses associated with employee compensation
and benefits, and make needed investments in critical areas, such as
technology, training, and performance recognition. We have managed our
resource shortages by reducing our staffing levels and underfunding
critical investments. We cannot, and should not, continue this trend.
The funds we are requesting are essential to helping us remain
prepared to meet the complex, controversial, and multidimensional
issues and challenges confronting the Congress now and in the future.
Our request includes only those funds we need to stabilize at our
approved 3,275 full-time equivalent staffing level and to incrementally
increase investments needed in training, technology, performance
recognition, and other key support items to a level consistent with
best practices of other comparable government and private sector
entities.
Before I begin detailing our fiscal year 2002 budget needs, I would
like to highlight some of GAO's accomplishments and achievements in
fiscal year 2000 and the major challenges confronting us.
A REVIEW OF GAO'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
GAO had a tremendous year in fiscal year 2000. As a result of
actions taken on our work by the Congress and federal departments and
agencies, taxpayers benefited from over $23 billion in financial
savings--a $61 return on every $1 invested in GAO. Our work also
resulted in significant improvements in government operations and
services that will benefit all Americans. Among other things, by acting
on our recommendations, the government improved public health and
safety, strengthened national security, better protected consumers, and
improved its financial management and information systems. We also
contributed critical information to public debates on Social Security
and Medicare reform and called attention to looming problems, such as
the security of government computer systems and the knowledge and
skills needed in the federal workforce in coming years. Other
indicators of our performance, such as the number of testimonies our
senior executives provided and recommendations implemented, exceeded
that of most recent years. I also am pleased to report that we made
significant progress toward addressing many of the organizational,
human capital, and information technology challenges that I outlined
for you at last year's hearing. We had a very busy and productive year.
Taxpayers Benefit from $23 Billion in Financial Savings
In fiscal year 2000, GAO helped achieve about $23.2 billion in
direct financial benefits for the American taxpayer. These benefits are
a result of the Congress or federal departments and agencies
implementing our recommendations to make government services more
efficient, improve the budgeting and spending of tax dollars, and
strengthen the management of federal resources. The estimated financial
benefits include budget reductions, costs avoided, resources
reallocated, and revenue enhancements. These results exceeded our
target of $22 billion and were greater than that of the previous three
fiscal years, as illustrated in the following graphic.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Some examples of GAO's work that contributed to these financial
savings include the following.
--Helping to Prevent Fraud and Abuse in Medicare.--GAO had long
advocated increased funding specifically for activities to
prevent fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. In 1996, the
Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, which provided the additional funding. As a
result of these activities, the Medicare program's net savings
were about $3 billion in fiscal year 2000.
--Cutting Costs of the F-22 Aircraft Program.--In a series of reports
beginning in the mid-1990s, GAO questioned various aspects of
the Air Force's F-22 aircraft acquisition program. We reported
that the acquisition strategy was risky and that the program
was experiencing cost growth, manufacturing problems with test
aircraft, and testing delays. Our analysis helped the Congress
reduce the final fiscal year 2000 appropriation request for the
F-22 by about $552 million and to identify conditions that
should be met before the Department of Defense could begin full
production.
--Supporting Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).--GAO
continued to support congressional oversight of IRS'
operations, including IRS' implementation of the 1998 IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act, its budget requests, and
administration of various tax functions. For example, our
testimony on IRS' broad-based modernization efforts provided an
integrated assessment of the challenges IRS continues to face
in its tax enforcement and customer service operations and its
modernization of performance management, information systems,
and business practices. At the same time, our work generated
savings and potential reductions in taxpayer burden. Our work
on the improved use of information returns in IRS' tax
enforcement operations yielded $83 million in savings this
year. IRS also agreed to begin tracking information that has
the potential of clarifying its notices to taxpayers and easing
their task in complying with those notices.
--Recapturing Excess HUD Funding.--GAO identified funding from
several sources in the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's budget, including unexpended balances no longer
needed, that could be recaptured in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The Congress rescinded $1.65 billion from the Section 8 housing
program's fiscal year 1998 budget authority and rejected $1.3
billion of HUD's fiscal year 1999 request for housing
assistance for a total reduction of $2.95 billion.
Subsequently, GAO and HUD worked together to revise HUD's
analysis to show that, by using recaptured funds, HUD had
sufficient funding to meet its needs.
Almost 800 Actions Taken To Improve Government Operations or Services
GAO's recommendations and audit findings also resulted in or
contributed to many improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of
government operations and services during fiscal year 2000. While
immeasurable in dollar terms, they contributed to improving public
safety and consumer protection, establishing more effective and
efficient government operations, and safeguarding the nation's physical
and information infrastructure. We recorded 788 actions taken in
response to our recommendations to improve how the federal government
operates, a number far exceeding that of the preceding 3 years as
illustrated in the following graphic.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Examples of GAO's work that resulted in these accomplishments
follow.
--Improving Nursing Home Quality of Care.--The Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) and several states--including California,
Maryland, and Michigan--improved their oversight and
enforcement of nursing homes' quality of care standards in
response to GAO's recommendations highlighting weaknesses in
existing processes. Improvements included increased funding for
nursing home surveyors, more prompt investigation of complaints
alleging serious harm to residents, more immediate enforcement
actions for homes with repeated serious problems, a
reorganization of HCFA's regional staff to improve consistency
in oversight, and increased funding for administrative law
judges to reduce the backlog of appealed enforcement actions.
--Managing Wildfire Prevention.--``Federal Experts Saw Massive
Wildfires Coming'' read an August 7, 2000, news headline. The
article was referring to GAO's April 1999 report on wildfires.
Since then, GAO has used the increased risk of uncontrollable
and often catastrophic wildfires as an example of the need for
``strategic budgeting'' to address issues that are not aligned
with the current budget and organizational structures of the
four major federal land management agencies. Responding to the
wildfires that burned over 6.5 million acres of public and
private land in 2000, the Congress appropriated an additional
$240 million in fiscal year 2001 to reduce hazardous fuels in
high-risk locations where wildlands and urban areas meet. GAO
testified on the need for the four land management agencies to
act quickly to develop a framework to spend funds effectively
and to account accurately for what they accomplish with the
funds.
--Improving Human Capital Practices.--Our work on human capital
issues helped focus the attention of the executive and
legislative branches on the importance of these issues,
particularly in managing for results. We helped spur the
administration to make human capital a priority management
objective in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission, and our
framework for human capital self-assessment is being used at
other agencies, including the Social Security Administration,
Small Business Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. The
framework also is used throughout GAO to help guide our
research and development work and our congressionally driven
examinations of how well agencies are pursuing strategic human
capital management in support of their missions and goals. We
have designated strategic human capital management as one of
the federal government's high risk areas in our 2001
Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk Update.
--Strengthening Information Security.--GAO has evaluated the security
of critical information systems at federal agencies and
recommended numerous improvements, most recently at three
Treasury agencies, the Department of Energy, Department of
Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In
September 2000, GAO issued a governmentwide perspective on
federal information security that covered Inspector General and
GAO audit findings reported since July 1999. We concluded that
weak security continues to be a widespread problem that places
critical and sensitive federal operations at risk of tampering,
disruption, and inappropriate disclosure. In October 2000,
government information security reform provisions were enacted
into law to strengthen information security practices
throughout the government.
--Stabilizing the Balkans.--Despite the presence of two large forces
led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Balkans
remain volatile. GAO's work has shown that the international
operations in Bosnia and Kosovo face severe obstacles to
achieving enduring peace and stability. Most local leaders and
members of their respective ethnic groups have not embraced the
political and social reconciliation needed to build
multiethnic, democratic societies. Our work also has shown that
the international community has not provided the resources that
the United Nations mission in Kosovo says it needs,
particularly for building a civilian police force. If progress
is not made with these matters, violence may escalate or armed
conflict may result.
Requests for GAO Testimony and Implementation of Recommendations
Increased
In fiscal year 2000, the number of times that GAO's senior
executives testified before the Congress and the rate at which our
recommendations were implemented exceeded that of most recent years.
Because GAO's primary function is to support the Congress in carrying
out its decision-making and oversight responsibilities, the number of
times our experts testify before congressional panels each year is an
indicator of our responsiveness and reflects the impact, importance,
and value of our work. In fiscal year 2000, GAO officials testified 263
times before 104 different House and Senate Committees and
Subcommittees, more than half of all congressional committees and
subcommittees. Our experts testified on a broad range of issues of
national importance, including arms control, health care, Social
Security, human capital, nuclear waste cleanup, wildfire prevention,
aviation safety and security, international trade, computer security,
financial management and reform, and budget issues.
Our assistance to the Congress at public hearings continues to
remain high, as illustrated below. However, it is clear that the number
of congressional oversight hearings and other GAO testimony
opportunities will decline significantly in fiscal year 2001 as a
result of factors beyond our control. Among these include the slow
start of the 107th Congress due to the power sharing arrangements in
the Senate, closer margins and committee leadership changes in the
House, and delay in filling many Bush Administration policy positions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
We also exceeded our performance of previous years with respect to
the rate at which the recommendations we made 4 years ago were
implemented. We use a 4-year interval because our historical data show
that agencies often need time to take action on our recommendations. By
the end of fiscal year 2000, 78 percent of the recommendations we made
in fiscal year 1996 had been implemented. As illustrated in the graphic
below, this rate exceeds that of the preceding 3 years. Implemented
recommendations correct the underlying causes of problems, weaknesses
in internal controls, failures to comply with laws or regulations, or
other matters impeding effective and efficient performance.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Significant Progress Made Addressing Management and Operational Issues
Last year, I outlined for you a number of major management and
operational challenges facing GAO. These challenges included human
capital, information technology, organizational, job processes, and
communication issues within the agency. I am pleased to report that we
made significant progress toward addressing many of these issues.
We continued to enhance our effectiveness and efficiency through a
variety of means during fiscal year 2000, including issuing a strategic
plan, establishing congressional protocols, realigning the agency,
implementing key human capital initiatives, and increasing the use of
information technology. These efforts to enhance and strengthen GAO and
its services to the Congress and the American people include the
following.
--In the Spring of 2000, we issued our first strategic plan for the
21st century based on input from the Congress and supplemented
by GAO's own expertise and other outreach efforts. The plan
focuses on how we intend to support the Congress in helping to
shape a more efficient and effective government. It describes
our role and mission in the federal government; the core values
that guide our work; the trends, conditions, and external
factors underlying our plan; and our goals, objectives, and
strategies for serving the Congress. Our intent is to update
the strategic plan every 2 years for each Congress.
--We established a set of congressional protocols to govern our
interactions with and ensure our accountability to the
Congress. These protocols, which underwent a 9-month pilot
test, set out clear, transparent, consistently applied policies
and practices for GAO's relations with the Congress to reduce
miscommunication and ensure that all requesters are treated
equitably. The final protocols were issued in November 2000.
--We continued our outreach efforts to understand how best to meet
congressional needs and assist the Congress in using our
resources and services. During each Congress, I and other GAO
executives plan to meet with the leadership of the Senate and
House, all Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members, and
Members of our oversight and appropriations committees to
obtain feedback on our performance and information needed to
update our strategic plan.
--We issued our first-ever Accountability Report to the Congress
discussing our performance and accountability in serving the
Congress and the American people in fiscal year 1999. The
report reviews our accomplishments in meeting our mission and
sustaining our core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability. We also issued a performance plan for fiscal year
2001 that contains the performance measures and annual
performance targets we will use to gauge progress toward
accomplishing our strategic goals and objectives.
--We also realigned the agency to better support the Congress and
prepare ourselves with current and expected resource levels to
meet the future challenges outlined in our strategic plan. To
align GAO's structure with the goals in our strategic plan, we
reorganized both our field and headquarters operations. The
changes were primarily designed to better align our resources
with our strategic plan, eliminate a layer of managerial
hierarchy, reduce the number of organizational units, increase
internal and external coordination activities with the Congress
and other accountability organizations, clarify the roles and
responsibilities of management, increase the number of
personnel who perform rather than manage or review work, and
increase the critical mass and enhance the flexibility of field
resources.
We also began implementing a range of new and enhanced human
capital and information technology strategies to position GAO for
future success. Thanks to the Congress, we now have legislative
authority that provides us greater flexibility to effectively manage
our human capital. This legislation, enacted into law in October 2000,
grants us the authority to establish new senior-level scientific and
technical positions; offer targeted voluntary early-outs and buy-outs;
and carry out reductions in force to downsize, realign, or correct
skills imbalances within our agency. We have issued implementing
regulations for early-outs and the scientific and technical positions
and plan to issue buy-out and reductions-in-force authorizing
regulations later this year.
Other accomplishments within the human capital area include:
--Completion of a first-ever electronic knowledge and skills
assessment and inventory that is being used to help identify
skill gaps and succession planning needs within the agency. In
addition, staff completed an employee preference survey that is
being used along with the results of the knowledge and skills
inventory to meet our institutional work needs while
accommodating staff preferences for engagements to the extent
possible.
--Significant recruiting and college relations efforts on the
nation's campuses. Aggressive efforts are underway to attract,
recruit, and hire high-caliber staff with the skills and
abilities needed to assist GAO in achieving our strategic goals
and objectives.
--Revised performance standards for all staff that incorporate GAO's
core values and strategic goals, update descriptions of
performance to better reflect the current nature of GAO's work,
and include key management and performance concepts, such as
leadership by example, client service, and measurable results.
Also, during fiscal year 2000, we began a major initiative to
develop a competency-based performance appraisal system for
analysts to reflect prevailing best practices. In fiscal year
2001, we will begin updating the performance systems for
attorneys and mission support staff to reflect prevailing best
practices.
--Enhanced internal communications that remain a vital tool for
change management throughout the agency. Throughout fiscal year
2000, I conducted a number of telecasts to all agency staff to
discuss GAO's strategic plan and congressional protocols,
client service, employee survey results, initiatives to enhance
the agency's human capital programs and legislative proposals,
work processes, organizational alignment, information
technology, and other areas of interest to the staff. Also, to
engage our employees more fully in improving the agency's
performance, we established the Comptroller General's Employee
Advisory Council to discuss current and emerging issues of
mutual interest and concern and implemented an employee
suggestion program that received more than 800 submissions in
its first year of operation.
We also made significant gains in strengthening and improving our
operations and processes in fiscal year 2000. We implemented two new
management strategies: risk management and matrix management. GAO's
risk management approach allows management to identify and involve key
stakeholders throughout an engagement to transcend traditional
organizational boundaries to maximize institutional value and minimize
related risks. GAO's matrix management approach maximizes our value to
the Congress by leveraging the knowledge, skills, and experience of all
employees to ensure the highest quality products and services and to
help the Congress address the challenging, complex, multidimensional
problems facing the nation.
Throughout fiscal year 2000, we also continued to improve our use
of information technology as a tool for productivity and knowledge
management. To provide our teams of analysts with a mechanism for
simplifying and standardizing their work, we launched the Electronic
Assistance Guide for Leading Engagements--the EAGLE, which is a
prototype of a comprehensive Web-based guide to conducting GAO
engagements. We also continued to enhance the capabilities of our
computer network and successfully made our systems Y2K compliant. In
addition, we began a number of projects on enabling technologies,
including software upgrades, the deployment of notebook computers, and
improved remote access to allow teams to work more efficiently in the
field. Also, to carry out GAO's responsibilities under the Presidential
Transition Act of 2000, we developed a separate section on our Internet
web site with links to key GAO contacts and reports on the major
executive branch agencies, which was completed at the beginning of
fiscal year 2001.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 PLANS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
During fiscal year 2001, we will continue to focus our work on the
major issues facing the Congress, including Social Security solvency,
education, economic development, Medicare reform, national security,
international affairs, and government management reforms and computer
security. Another top priority this year will be working with leaders
on the Hill to help the Congress strengthen its approach to oversight,
with an emphasis on looking hard at what government does, how it does
it, and the long-term consequences of today's policy choices. GAO's
2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk Update will
serve as a solid foundation for congressional oversight. Also, as I
mentioned earlier, we have several key initiatives in progress to
improve how we serve the Congress, among them an expanded client
feedback system; protocols governing our dealings with federal
agencies; new high-level advisory bodies to gain the expertise of
business leaders, former Cabinet officials, and other experts; and new
avenues for sharing our own expertise with other accountability
organizations.
We also are preparing to carry out two new responsibilities
mandated by the previous Congress. We will chair a panel to review the
government's A-76 process for obtaining services through competitive
sourcing. Also, if the needed funding is provided, we will review the
costs and benefits of major regulations under the Truth in Regulating
Act (Public Law 106-312, Oct. 17, 2000). We have a request pending for
$2.6 million in supplemental funding for fiscal year 2001 and are
requesting $5.2 million for fiscal year 2002 to meet the requirements
created by the Truth in Regulating Act.
Internally, we will continue to emphasize initiatives to address
our two major management challenges: human capital and information
technology. With about 80 percent of our resources devoted to staff
salary and benefits, the area of human capital presents a major
challenge. A significant percentage of our workforce is nearing
retirement age, while marketplace, demographic, economic, and
technological changes indicate that competition for skilled workers
will be greater in the future. With our agency realigned to facilitate
our work for the Congress and new legislative authority in hand to
manage our workforce more effectively, we are pursuing several
initiatives to strengthen our human capital. For example, we are
recruiting diverse, high-caliber staff with the skills and abilities we
need to achieve our strategic goals and objectives. We will be putting
into place a competency-based performance appraisal system and using
the results of our staff knowledge and skills inventory to help us in
workforce planning. We also have reestablished and are expanding
training opportunities for our staff-from the senior executives to the
new hires.
Another major management challenge is building an integrated and
reliable information technology (IT) infrastructure that supports the
achievement of our goals. We are conducting a comprehensive IT review
to identify opportunities to increase our efficiency, effectiveness,
and productivity. We also are mapping our business processes to our IT
architecture and will link future IT investments to our business goals.
In addition, we plan to continue initiatives to increase our employees'
productivity, maximize the use of technology, and enhance the Web-based
knowledge-sharing applications on the desktop. Last, we also must
heighten the security of our network.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST
To fully support the Congress as outlined in our strategic plan and
the additional congressional mandates received since its issuance, we
are requesting a budget for fiscal year 2002 of about $430.3 million.
This funding level will allow us to support and staff to our approved
level of 3,275 full-time equivalent personnel. We will increase our
emphasis on areas of congressional and public interest and, internally,
will continue to emphasize initiatives to address our two major
management challenges: human capital and information technology. Our
request also includes $5.2 million to carry out new responsibilities
created by the Truth in Regulating Act. In addition, we are seeking a
nominal increase in GAO's representation expenses, from $10,000 to
$12,500, to accommodate our expanded role with both domestic and
international accountability organizations.
Additional funding in fiscal year 2002 is being requested for:
--mandatory pay and benefit costs resulting primarily from federal
cost-of-living and locality pay adjustments, based on Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, increased participation
in the Federal Employees Retirement System, and an increase in
the estimated number of retirees--$17,554,000;
--uncontrollable inflationary increases in transportation, lodging,
postage, printing, supplies, contracts, and other essential
mission support services, based on OMB's 2-percent inflation
index and other factors--$1,565,000; and
--uncontrollable contract rate increases in building operations and
maintenance and information technology programs--$1,453,000.
Funding of $8,004,000 for salaries and benefits also is being
requested to staff and support our approved 3,275 full-time equivalent
staffing level. We plan to use these resources to enhance our review
efforts in areas of congressional and public interest and concern, such
as government computer security, Social Security solvency, education,
economic development, Medicare reform, and international affairs.
The additional funds requested also would be used to continue
initiatives begun in fiscal year 2000 that are critical to supporting
the Congress and the goals and objectives identified in our strategic
plan. These initiatives include human capital initiatives and enabling
technological advances to enhance the performance and productivity of
our workforce as follows.
--Human capital initiatives--$3,324,000:
--Mass transit subsidy allowance comparable to the mandatory
benefit provided in the executive branch--$1,500,000;
--Performance-based recognition and compensation programs--
$1,014,000;
--Training and professional development activities to continue
efforts begun in fiscal year 2000 to address skill gaps,
maximize staff productivity and effectiveness, and update
our training curriculum to address organizational, change
management, and technical needs of both individuals and the
agency--$400,000;
--Education loan repayments to provide recruitment and retention
incentives and benefits comparable to the executive
branch--$410,000.
--Enabling technology initiatives to increase employee productivity,
maximize the use of technology, and enhance employee tools
available at the desktop, including such initiatives as
reengineering business processes, upgrading hardware and
software applications, expanding our videoconferencing
capabilities, and implementing a best practices network
security program--$2,585,000.
Other efforts include:
--Enhancing security and removing asbestos within the GAO Building to
protect the health and safety of our most important asset--our
staff--$2,839,000;
--Upgrading GAO's computer security facility to ensure our continued
ability to conduct effective, comprehensive computer security
controls testing of complex, diverse, and interconnected
executive branch systems and to attract and retain skilled,
technical staff--$750,000;
--Enhancing the International Organization of Supreme Audit
Institution's efforts to combat government related corruption
around the world, multi-lateral training efforts with eastern-
bloc and selected South and Latin American countries, and
bilateral assistance to Russia--$250,000; and
--Contracting for the development of a requirements document to be
used along with other legislative branch agencies to jointly
procure and share a common financial management system--
$250,000.
In addition, as previously mentioned, we are requesting $5.2
million to provide the annual funding requirement specified in the
Truth in Regulating Act.
BUDGET REQUEST CRITICAL TO SUSTAINING EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE
CONGRESS
The resources we are requesting for fiscal year 2002 are critical
to addressing our human capital and information technology challenges
and ensuring our ability to effectively meet the increasing
congressional requests for GAO services. We have reached a point that
if sufficient funding is not received to address these issues and
properly support our staff, we will need to take actions that will
negatively impact our service and responsiveness to the Congress.
Congressional demand for GAO services continues to increase. For
example, as illustrated below, the number of engagements begun as a
result of a congressional request has increased during the past 4
years. These numbers do not include hundreds of other requests that had
not yet been started.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
We have worked hard over the past 3 years with available resources
to significantly increase our productivity levels to successfully meet
increasing congressional demand. For example, we realigned our
organization, reengineered many of our business processes, retooled our
engagement and risk management practices, revised our performance
appraisal and recognition systems, and updated our information
technology infrastructure. However, we have reached a point that
significant additional productivity gains are unlikely without
sufficient funding to further enhance our human capital and information
technology programs.
We are concerned about our ability to continue to increase our
productivity levels, sustain our return on investment, and meet future
congressional demands given the recent trend in our funding levels.
Since becoming the Comptroller General at the beginning of fiscal year
1999, I have not asked for any increase in our approved 3,275 full-time
equivalent staffing level. I have only requested the funding necessary
to properly maintain and support this staffing level and cover
mandatory expenses, including inflation and compensation costs.
However, as illustrated in the following graphic, the funding GAO
received has been significantly less than what we requested and needed
to support our approved staffing level.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
In order to cover our mandatory expenses during the past 3 years,
we had to staff well below our approved staffing level, as illustrated
below, and delayed or made reduced investments in important human
capital and information technology initiatives. As a result of these
funding shortfalls and the mandated funding reductions in the mid-
1990s, our training, performance-based recognition and rewards programs
are not where they need to be. Consequently, we are at a competitive
disadvantage with the executive branch in some areas, such as
performance rewards. In addition, we have some management information
systems that are obsolete and incapable of interfacing within our
network environment and a variety of software that needs to be upgraded
to ensure continued vendor maintenance and support. We cannot continue
down this path. We have reached the point at which investments in these
critical programs and other areas must be made in order to effectively
support our staff and provide the high level of service expected and
required by the Congress.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The funds we are requesting are critical to addressing our
succession planning challenges and enhancing the knowledge, skills, and
abilities of our workforce. A large percentage of our workforce will
become eligible for retirement within the next 5 years. More than 35
percent of our analysts and 50 percent of our senior executives will be
retirement eligible within that time period. We need to aggressively
continue our efforts to hire new staff, develop existing staff, and
otherwise build the future GAO. In order to be competitive in
attracting, hiring, and retaining high caliber and talented staff, we
need to be able to further enhance our human capital programs. Thus,
the funding we are requesting for training, performance-based
recognition and compensation programs, education loan repayments, mass
transit subsidy allowance, and enabling technology is critical. Without
such funding, we will not be competitive in attracting and retaining
the best, brightest, and expertise needed to effectively serve the
Congress in addressing the complex, controversial, and multidimensional
issues and challenges it faces each year.
If the funding trend of the past 3 years is continued, we will need
to restrict our work to only responding to requests from committees and
subcommittees, thus severely limiting--and potentially eliminating--
work done for individual members. Such a restriction also would further
reduce the limited flexibility we have to research and develop
expertise on emerging issues, thereby limiting our ability to respond
to the Congress when related issues arise on short notice. For example,
were it not for the advance research and development work we had done
on computer security, China, the World Trade Organization, and last
year's presidential election issues, we would have been unable to be
responsive to the congressional requests and public debates on these
real time, event driven issues. We need sufficient funding to build and
ensure we have the capacity and expertise to address such emerging
issues on short notice in the future.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Fiscal year 2000 was a tremendous year of accomplishment and
achievement for GAO--a year of great service to the Congress and of
great benefit to the American taxpayer. We have made significant
progress in addressing many of the areas in need of improvement in GAO
and need to continue these efforts. The resources we are requesting for
fiscal year 2002 are critical to sustaining our high-level of
performance and service to the Congress. We are the nation's and
possibly the world's leading accountability organization. We need these
additional resources to continue our efforts to further strengthen GAO
and be a model organization for the rest of the federal government and
accountability organizations around the world. In addition, given GAO's
impressive results and return on investment, it only makes sense for
GAO to receive resource allocations that are well above average for
other federal entities. To do otherwise would send a troubling message
to GAO's employees, the press, and the public.
We look forward to your continued support and working even more
closely with you and your staff this year and in fiscal year 2002. This
concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
that the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
STAFFING LEVELS
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
candor, and I appreciate your enthusiasm.
In anticipation of this, I had Mr. Kimmitt, the clerk, draw
up an analysis of what's happened since the downsizing. As you
know, I was on this subcommittee--not the chairman, but working
closely with the chairman--at the time the downsizing was made,
and we made a pact with GAO, which I have done my best to
uphold ever since, which was: if you can take a 25-percent cut,
which we were convinced you could, we would then hold you
harmless from that point forward. And you weren't here through
some of those early fights. Dick Brown was and remembers some
of the difficulty we had with members of the House who wanted
to come back and do further.
So I asked Mr. Kimmitt to do a historic analysis, and it is
oversimplified, but it is kind of interesting. I'll give you a
copy of this, but here's the FTE Employees in fiscal year 1995.
And without objection, this will be made a part of the record
at this point. So anyone reading the record will see the
document we're reading off of.
[The information follows:]
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) EMPLOYEES
ACTUALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE 25 Percent
Employees Cut Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995................ 4,342 3,256 1,086
Fiscal year 1996................ 3,677 3,256 421
Fiscal year 1997................ 3,341 3,256 85
Fiscal year 1998................ 3,245 3,256 (11)
Fiscal year 1999................ 3,275 3,256 19
Fiscal year 2000................ 3,192 3,256 (64)
Fiscal year 2001 (Est.)......... 3,155 3,256 (101)
Fiscal year 2002 (Request)...... 3,275 3,256 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Bennett. GAO was at 4,342 FTEs. And an exact
statistical cut would take you to 3,256. So in fiscal year
1995, there were 1,000 people, roughly, too high, almost 1,100.
It came down in 1996 and again in 1997, and that's appropriate
because we said, ``You have 2 years in which to do this.'' So
it got down to 3,341 in 1997, essentially achieved that. In
1998, you were 11 under the statistical 3,256. And then, as you
say, the authorization was set at 3,275, and you hit that,
which was 19 positions over. Then fiscal 2000 dropped down to
64 under and dropped down to 101 under. Now you're asking to
come back to the 3,275, which would put you again 19 over,
which is essentially full compliance.
What caused the 64 and the 101 drops in those two years,
which is what makes your request now look so big if we have to
catch up the 120 you're talking about? Was it congressional
appropriations? Was it the uncertainties of retirement? Was it
some other shift? You came on board about in the middle of
this. Maybe your personality drove all of those people out. Who
knows?
Mr. Walker. I hope you intend that as compliment.
Senator Bennett. I intend that as a joke.
Around here, Senators are constantly putting up two charts
and saying, ``Look, this trend line is going up, and this trend
is going down, so naturally this triggered that.'' And I've
long since learned that, very often, there is no correlation
whatsoever between those two.
But these, at least, are a first cut at why we find
ourselves in the position of trying to have this big a jump if
I'm going to justify this big a jump to the full committee. We
are fortunate to have the chairman of the full committee as a
member of the subcommittee, although he couldn't be here today.
I need some background, so let me throw that at you and have a
discussion as to where we are.
Mr. Walker. Well, first, we did not receive our mandatories
in all the years since 1999. Therefore, if we don't have the
funding, something has got to give. We either have to cut back
on training, we have to cut back on travel, we have to cut back
on enabling technology, or we have to cut back on investments
in people and not fill authorized slots.
Senator Bennett. So you're saying this was caused by a
shortfall in appropriations?
Mr. Walker. It was caused primarily by the fact that we did
not receive our mandatories. My personal opinion is that I
don't measure success by how many people we have and what our
budget is; I measure it by results. I would rather invest in
our current people and get the most out of our current people
than merely fill slots. However, the difficulty that we have
is, if we don't continue to get our mandatories, this sets a
trend where we are going to get smaller and smaller every year.
At the same time, demand from our client, the Congress, is
going up every year. And you've got a lot of data your staff
has given you to be able to demonstrate that fact. Therefore,
that means our backlogs increase, which means that our
flexibility and our ability to respond in a timely manner can
be adversely affected.
Now, we've done a lot to help that through leveraging
technology, through streamlining how we do things, having more
people focused on doing the work rather than reviewing the
work, et cetera, but there's a limit as to how far you can go
in that regard. So it's basically because we didn't get our
mandatories. I made the decision that I would rather invest
more in the people that we have now, rather than merely to fill
the slots.
HIRING RATES
Senator Bennett. How rapidly can you hire 120 people? Could
you get up to this level?
Mr. Walker. We could, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter
is that, as you probably know, we had a virtual hiring freeze
for a 5-year period. We were out of the market until right
about the time that I came on as Comptroller General. This
year, we have a very aggressive recruiting and college-
relations effort. We're going to meet or exceed our goals. We
have been very fortunate. While many Federal Government
agencies and departments have had difficulty in attracting and
retaining people, we are doing a very good job in that regard,
and we are still seen as an employer of choice. And so I
believe we could do it if we had the resources to be able to do
it.
EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES
Senator Bennett. Let's talk about the metro subsidy and the
tuition. I'm assuming that means there is a forgiveness of
student loans if they come to work for you and pledge to stay
for so many years.
Mr. Walker. Right.
Senator Bennett. Have you got a dollar figure on that?
Mr. Walker. Well, the dollar figure that we're asking for
is $410,000. Basically, the way----
Senator Bennett. That covered both of those programs?
Mr. Walker. No, $410,000 for the tuition reimbursement,
$1.5 million, I think, for the transit subsidy.
Senator Bennett. I'm not challenging you at all, but I'm
surprised that the transit subsidy is more than the tuition.
Mr. Walker. Let me tell you why. Because the way the
transit subsidy works, it's a specified amount that you have to
provide, and it applies to every individual who's eligible for
it. Therefore, what we have done is come up with an estimation
that, if we make it available, how many GAO people would likely
take it.
The way the tuition reimbursement works is--some of the
costs are back-loaded. Basically, the way the statute works is
that an employee has to work at least 3 years in order to be
able to get the subsidy. He/she can't receive more than $6,000
per year. He/she can't receive more than a total of $40,000
over the period of the subsidy. What I would want to try to do,
quite frankly, is to structure this in a way that maximizes the
incentive for people to stay 3 or more years. I would back-load
some of this. The reason that I would want to do that, Mr.
Chairman, is because our statistics show that if people stay at
GAO for at least 3 years, then the odds of us keeping them
long-term increase exponentially. And so, therefore, we have an
ability to be able to back-load some of the budgetary costs
that would be associated with this. That's the primary reason
why you don't see as much money in that area.
Senator Bennett. I see. The Governmental Affairs Committee
probably ought to authorize it.
Mr. Walker. The law is already on the books. OPM----
Senator Bennett. Okay, it is already authorized.
Mr. Walker. OPM has to issue regulations that will cover
us, but we anticipate they're going to do that shortly, and
then we'll be able to do it.
Senator Bennett. All right. So you are already authorized,
and that means we can appropriate without having the ire of
certain Senators coming down upon us. But this is a 3-year--
rolling 3-year obligation, so the $410,000 you're talking about
is for the first year?
Mr. Walker. That is correct.
Mrs. Harper. That is correct, and there is a 3-year work
commitment from the individual to repay that loan.
Senator Bennett. And that also makes the numbers make a
little more sense, because you're really talking $1.2 million,
in terms of the relief that the individuals are looking for.
Mr. Walker. Right.
Mrs. Harper. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Bennett. Okay, good.
Mr. Walker. And the importance of that, Mr. Chairman, is
that many people who are choosing public service are facing two
problems: (1) they don't make as much money in compensation as
they could in the private sector; and (2) at the same time,
they have a significant debt load with which they must deal. So
there are many people whose heart and head will say, ``I would
like to do public service,'' but their wallet won't let them.
That is why we're trying to be able to do something here. We
don't want to be on an un-level playing field with the
executive branch, which is our concern, because that wouldn't
help the Congress.
Senator Bennett. I understand that. If I could wave a magic
wand, it would be that any institution of higher learning that
has an endowment above a certain billion-dollar level would
have to have that show up in their tuition. There are certain
Ivy League colleges where it would be free.
Mr. Walker. We know you have a lot of influence, Mr.
Chairman.
WINTER OLYMPICS PREPARATIONS
Senator Bennett. You recently observed a counter-terrorist
exercise done with respect to the Salt Lake Winter Olympics.
Have you got any observations or reactions you can share with
the committee? And I have a particular interest in that.
Mr. Dodaro. Our team, as part of looking at counter-
terrorism activities in a broad sense, did observe the exercise
for the Olympics and found a couple of things. One, we thought
the plan was good. Also, we thought that the cooperation that
was shown among the agencies was excellent. So we were pretty
impressed with the observations to date. Now, we're going to
continue to track this and monitor this whole issue. It is an
area that is increasing in terms of demand from the Congress--
looking at counter-terrorism activities and, of course, the
proposals for homeland defense. So we're watching that very
carefully, but our initial reaction was a positive one.
Senator Bennett. Good. Well, the folks in the Secret
Service and other law-enforcement agencies tell me that the
Olympics constitute the number one attraction for terrorist
activities. There is nothing more attractive to a potential
terrorist than an event that is being watched worldwide by
somewhere between three and four billion people at any one
given time. And the days when the Olympics are a sporting event
are long-since over and are never coming back. Yes, we do
sporting events at the Olympics, but they have become far more
than that. And if we're ever going to have the Olympics in the
United States again, after the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, we
must recognize, as we have recognized in Salt Lake, and
previously in Atlanta, that the Olympics cannot be put on
without massive Federal involvement. And whatever you can do to
help us see that the Olympics are a non-event, as far as
terrorist activities are concerned, is effort well spent, and
we appreciate it.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, we're going to stay close to that. As you
know, Senator, another related issue is critical infrastructure
protection. We are spending more and more time on that, too,
both within the Federal Government computer security programs--
and we're asking for some additional money for our own computer
lab facility--but also public-private partnerships.
Senator Bennett. And you can expect that I'll be talking to
you about that when I wear one of the other hats that I wear.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I lived in Atlanta during the
1996 Olympics, so I know firsthand what you're talking about,
and your points are well taken.
TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT
Senator Bennett. All right. Just help me understand the
$5.2 million with respect to the Truth in Regulating Act.
Mr. Walker. The way that works, Mr. Chairman--as you know--
last year authorizing legislation was enacted passing the Truth
in Regulating Act, which basically gave the ability for the
Congress, either a chair or ranking member of a committee, to
request the Comptroller General, to review certain regulations
that had been proposed by the executive branch. In order for
that to become effective, the statute specifically provides
that there has to be an express appropriation earmarked for
this activity. The Congress recognized that we were already
being squeezed with regard to being able to achieve our current
mission and, since they were interested in us taking on this
additional responsibility, provided that we needed to receive
earmarked funding for it. We have a supplemental request for
this fiscal year of $2.6 million that is currently pending. The
$5.2 million would represent a full year's appropriation, and
we will not begin doing this work unless and until we receive
the appropriation.
CAPITOL POLICE
Senator Bennett. Finally, a thicket we keep getting into on
this committee is the Capitol Police. And we created a chief
administrative officer of the capital police in our last bill
to address a number of deficiencies in their administrative
operations. And the act requires you, Mr. Walker, to evaluate
the administrative officer's performance. This was one of the
most contentious issues between the House and the Senate in the
conference. We resolved it, as we ultimately resolve everything
around here, one way or another, but I would appreciate any
comments you might have on the Capitol Police's progress in
addressing fiscal management and human-resource management and
information-technology issues from your perspective.
Mr. Walker. First, let me assure you, we're on the case,
Mr. Chairman, and there was coordination with the Chief of
Police as well as the board, regarding the criteria for the
type of person they were looking for and the selection process.
They have hired a chief administrative officer. I have met with
the chief administrative officer. Gene Dodaro has, as well. We
have a team that is monitoring their activities. I received a
first draft of an outline of what will end up being the basis
for the plan that he is required to produce within a 6-month
time frame after he's appointed. Unfortunately, he was not
appointed until the end of February, and so he has been on
board less than 3 months. The plan is not required to be
completed until August, and so there are some challenges with
regard to timing, but I can assure you that we're staying right
on top of this. We know that this is a matter of interest to
you, as well as the body as a whole.
Mr. Dodaro. And actually, we're trying to identify, in a
constructive way, what needs to be addressed in the plan. In
fact, our team met with the chief administrative officer
yesterday to begin sharing some of our thoughts in that regard,
but it's a little early yet to make any determinations.
MERGING OF POLICE FORCES
Senator Bennett. Let me ask you an unfair question. This
place is full of unfair questions. One of the suggestions we've
made--indeed passed the Senate last year, didn't survive
conference--was for the consolidation of police forces--the
Capitol Police, the Library of Congress Police, the Government
Printing Office Police, and, I think, the Supreme Court
Police--all into a single police force. It struck me that there
could be some administrative savings in that kind of a
structure, that there could be a career-path opportunity for,
particularly, someone at the Government Printing Office Police
who could start there, and then, with additional training, say,
``Well, I can now move up to a position that might be
considered a little more demanding and maybe a little more
rewarding, with the Capitol Police.'' There could be some, not
only monetary savings, but administrative efficiencies--that
you have, instead of four different jurisdictions in a
particular geographic area, just one.
As I say, it didn't survive, for a variety of reasons. Do
you have any reaction to this? And if it is too early, as you
work with this administrative officer, could you give me some
advice as to whether you think this is a good idea?
Mr. Dodaro. I'm not aware of what work we have done on this
previously.
Mr. Brown. Yes, we did look at this matter last year. We
looked at some of the issues surrounding a merger of the
different police forces. We certainly could go to that next
step, based on what we've done up to this point, if you want us
to.
Mr. Dodaro. We did look at differences in the current
pension systems and some of the administrative hurdles that
would have to be addressed should the forces be consolidated.
But I would think if we were to examine costs and benefits, we
would also have to look more broadly at: What are the threats?
What are the levels of services? What are the other issues that
are intertwined from a law-enforcement protection standpoint,
as well as administrative efficiency, because I think that
would be a more holistic way to approach it.
Senator Bennett. That has to be the primary concern,
obviously.
Mr. Walker. I think there's two sides, Mr. Chairman. One
side is the operational side, which deals with the issues that
Gene Dodaro just mentioned, and we have not done that yet.
We'll be prepared to do it if we get a request. On that, I
think what we can do is--we can lay out the options, talk about
the pros and cons so that you could make an informed judgment--
you and the Senate could make an informed judgment on the
issue.
The other issue, though, is the administrative side. And on
that, frankly, there's more of an opportunity for government,
as a whole, to look at shared-service concepts. An important
issue is whether or not there is an opportunity to have shared-
service arrangements where you don't end up having individual
self-sustaining operations and where you end up consolidating
certain activities to provide services to a range of federal
entities. So there may be an opportunity there, as well, that
we would be happy to take a look at.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Bennett. Well, I would appreciate it if you would
keep this in mind as you fulfill your responsibility with the
Capitol Police, as we look forward to the visitor center for
which we have now broken ground. We've probably put grass back
over it.
But, nonetheless, we have officially broken ground, and I
have the shovel to prove it. We are in the process of pushing
the perimeter farther and farther away from the physical
Capitol itself. A manifestation of that is the new guard
station down on the other side of the Russell Garage. This
morning, for the first time, as I drove in, the policeman waved
good morning at me there, and the old guard station on C Street
and Delaware is vacant, and the guard has moved it down there.
Their perimeter has been pushed out to that point. The entrance
into the Capitol campus, for trucks and other services, is
anticipated that it would be pushed farther away. Now it's
Constitution and Delaware. It will move farther away, and that
means, I think, it makes more sense in the expanded perimeter
to have just one law enforcement/anti-terrorist protection
force instead of the ones that have traditionally grown up in
the days when the Library of Congress was self-contained and
the Capitol was self-contained. We didn't think in terms of a
Capitol Hill campus with perimeter security in a broader area.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES
Mr. Walker. Well, candidly, Mr. Chairman, I think this
whole concept of rethinking things, in light of changes that
have occurred over the past decades in different threats and
circumstances, has application throughout government. Take for
example the issue of food safety. There are six agencies
involved in food safety. Does that make a lot of sense? I can
give you ten examples of where we've--over the years--created
independent operating entities or independent programs. And one
of the things I think there's really a need for the Congress to
take a look at where we're at, and does it make sense for the
future. So this is just one example.
Senator Bennett. A very small one, but I appreciate your
pointing that out. And critical infrastructure is another
example where the stove-piping that goes on in the modern world
in which we live is not only not appropriate, but
counterproductive towards getting any kind of a solution.
Mr. Walker. One of the areas we are looking into right now,
just for your information is--if you look at real property and
related infrastructure, it's not just a DOD issue, it is a VA
issue, and it's a civilian agency issue. It's also an overseas
issue with regard to the State Department.
We have a lot of footprints in an age of diverse and
diffuse threats, and that means that we also have a lot of
excess infrastructure, which costs us money. It costs us money
because you have to maintain those facilities. You have to
protect those facilities. But in addition to that, it costs us
money because their asset-recovery values, in some cases, are
very, very significant that could otherwise be achieved and
redeployed. The amounts, we believe, are huge. We're going to
be doing some work in this area. Obviously, we understand there
are some political difficulties associated with some of this,
but the problem is only going to get greater, it's only going
to get worse. It's not going to get better. It's only going to
get worse. The excess is only going to get worse, given
technological advances and things of that nature.
Senator Bennett. That's the subject for another lunch. I
look forward to it.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony, and we
will do what we can to help solve your problem.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAN CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Senator Bennett. Our final witness today is Mr. Dan
Crippen, Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
accompanied by Mr. Barry Anderson, who is the Deputy Director,
and we welcome you both here today and appreciate all of the
efforts you have put forward.
The Congressional Budget Office is requesting $30.7 million
for its operations for fiscal 2002, a 7.9 percent increase over
the amounts appropriated in fiscal 2001. The majority of the
increase is to support the 4.6 percent cost-of-living increase
authorized, as well as a request to add four full-time-
equivalent positions, which would bring CBO to its authorized
level of 232 employees.
Mr. Crippen, I note for the record CBO is also asking for
major changes in its legislative authorities. I understand you
wish to create a CBO education fund using non-appropriated
receipts, provide direct student-loan repayment for new
employees, and clarify longstanding administrative provisions
governing the operations of CBO, such as training and property
disposal. And we look forward to your explanation of these
initiatives and how they might improve the operations of CBO.
With that, Mr. Crippen, we're in your hands.
Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to note
that also here today are Polly Hodges, who is our long-
suffering budget officer, and Bill Gainer, who runs our
administrative side.
Mr. Chairman, I would commend--I know you have more than
enough to read, but--for nighttime reading, at least--I would
commend to you our submitted statement. It is, I think, a very
good statement about what we're trying to do, in terms of
changing CBO and making some progress and modernizing both the
facilities and our approach to things.
Our request, as you've just said, is really quite simple.
We're asking for an additional $2.3 million, of which $1.7
million would be for compensation-related items for the current
workforce; about $400,000 for four additional FTEs; and a
couple hundred thousand dollars net to develop some needed ADP
resources, primarily because the House has decided to shut down
its mainframe. We're one of the few remaining users of that
mainframe, so we're going to have to migrate that work
ultimately--we're going to have to contract out for mainframe
support in the short run, and then we'll migrate that back
inside. And so that $200,000 net for ADP is largely because of
the need to move off the House mainframe.
MAINFRAME SUPPORT
Senator Bennett. Let me interrupt you there. You say
``migrate it out'' or ``migrate it back.'' Where will you go
out, and where are you going back?
Mr. Crippen. We're going to the Department of the Interior.
It has some spare mainframe capacity. I think the facility is
called the National Business Center. And so we're essentially
contracting with Interior to support our system in the short
run. We had hoped and thought that the House would not close
down its mainframe this soon. So what we're going to do is take
a 1-year contract out for mainframe support, take that year to
build--to adapt the system to a PC-server environment, and
bring it back in. So our need is a matter of timing more than
anything else.
Senator Bennett. When you say ``bring it back in,'' you
mean bring it back into CBO so that you will then be
independent of the House and the Senate or anybody else?
Mr. Crippen. Yes. The one thing we are dependent upon the
House for is space in the old computing facility, which happens
to be on the sixth floor of our building, and we're on the
fourth floor. The House has redundant power and air-
conditioning and, obviously, some extra space up there. We have
a small piece of real estate there now, where we keep some of
our critical servers because of the redundancy and the
security. We're going to need to move more of our equipment
upstairs eventually, and we're now talking to the architect and
chief administrative officer about doing that.
Senator Bennett. Pardon me for my ignorance, but which
building are you in?
Mr. Crippen. We're in the Ford House Office Building, which
was House Annex number two--across the freeway, across the
tracks, on the other side, on the edge of the campus, on the
outer edge.
SAFEGUARDING SENSITIVE DATA
We're also going to build--we're designing at the moment--
an even more secure facility for our sensitive data that we're
about to get from the IRS and, hopefully, from the Census
Bureau. It will be a facility that is not only physically
secure in the usual sense, with sensors and monitoring, but
also will have no connections to the outside world. And so
there's no chance that anyone could figure out a way to get in.
We will probably have a secure room on our floor, in which the
monitors and consoles will be, and the server will be upstairs
in a more physically secure environment.
CYBER SECURITY
Senator Bennett. Have you had any attempts to hack into
your facilities?
Mr. Crippen. Not that we know of. No one has gotten far
enough to show up. I'm assuming somebody has attempted. I have
a list of all of the things that we have done, which I will
give you for the record. It's fairly impressive. Until I read
the answer to your question, I wasn't aware of what we do now
to protect our existing facilities. And it is a lot, in terms
of what we check for, for anything inside our system. We have
an outside contractor who checks all e-mails, for example,
before they can get into our system. We have special access
with these key fobs that you may have seen, which change
passwords every minute. So we have taken a lot of steps to
protect what we have now, but I felt compelled that, given the
sensitivity of some of the data we're going to get for our
long-term modeling efforts, we ought to make it even more
secure and actually have no physical connection to the outside
world for that set of data.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan L. Crippen
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Congressional
Budget Office. The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with the
objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs about the economy and
the budget and to furnish the information and cost estimates required
for the Congressional budget process. CBO does not make policy
recommendations; instead, it presents the Congress with options and
alternatives in a wide range of subject areas having economic and
budgetary impacts.
The Congressional Budget Office is requesting $30,680,000 for its
operations in fiscal year 2002, a 7.9 percent increase over the
agency's fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The funding increase is
largely explained by external forces, including a workload that
continues to grow and a competitive labor market in which we must
compete for highly skilled employees, and the internal need to replace
our most mission-critical computer system. Overall, 94 percent of the
increase would go to pay and benefits, while all other costs would be
tightly controlled.
Specifically, we are asking for an 8.7 percent increase in pay and
benefits, which would fund mandatory pay and benefit increases and add
four full-time positions; a modest increase in information technology
spending; and level funding for all other goods and services by
continuing to reduce administrative costs.
Our 2002 budget request would:
--Support an increasing workload, which is expected to include more
than 2,800 legislative cost estimates and mandate cost
statements (a 30 percent increase from fiscal year 1999); 37
studies and other publications; and a heavy schedule of
Congressional testimony.
--Fund our authorized level of 232 full-time-equivalent positions,
four more than we could support in fiscal year 2001, to
accommodate the growing workload.
--Provide an annual pay adjustment of 4.6 percent for nonmanagers.
This adjustment was requested in anticipation of the expected
executive branch proposal, but it is also what we believe is
needed to remain competitive in the labor market (and it is
consistent with the call for continued parity between civilian
and military pay increases). The last two years' cost-of-living
adjustments have been important in restoring our
competitiveness as a recruiter, and we hope to maintain that
competitiveness.
--Fund promotions and merit increases for nonmanagement staff, as
well as performance-based pay for our managers and senior-level
employees, who do not receive automatic annual wage
adjustments.
--Allow a modest increase ($115,000) in technology spending to
replace BADS, a 20-year-old legacy system now operating on the
HIR mainframe (which HIR plans to eliminate at the end of this
year). This system, which allows us to track the progress of
pending legislation and make 10-year budget projections, is
absolutely critical to our mission. We plan to replace this
system with a client server application compatible with our
current hardware and software environment. The redevelopment is
estimated to cost over half a million dollars, but we will
offset much of the cost by savings elsewhere within ADP and
delays of some software upgrades.
We are also asking for certain changes in our legislative authority
to allow us to (1) create a CBO Education Fund using nonappropriated
funds; (2) pay off some portion of employees' student loans, using
authority similar to that granted other legislative and executive
branch agencies; and (3) clarify provisions governing our training
programs and disposal of surplus property. The legislative language for
these provisions is included as an appendix.
COST SAVINGS
Price inflation for certain goods and services has been quite high
in recent years, particularly for subscriptions, communications
technology, software, and computer support services. To help offset
that inflation, we have identified a number of operating cost savings.
In fiscal year 2000, we identified (or realized) nearly $400,000 in
such annual operating cost reductions. Some examples are:
--Eliminating software licenses (<nearly-eq>$100,000) and canceling
unnecessary journal subscriptions (<nearly-eq>$36,000);
--Consolidating local phone lines, and reducing long distance and
data communications costs (<nearly-eq>$42,000);
--Reducing printing, mailing, and document storage costs
(<nearly-eq>$20,000);
--Canceling equipment maintenance contracts that were no longer cost-
effective (<nearly-eq>$10,000); and
--Cutting the cost of mainframe time-sharing by shifting certain
operations to the Library of Congress (<nearly-eq>$100,000).
We are now working on additional operational changes that will save
at least another $250,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 2002.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2000
Fiscal year 2000 saw an increased workload at the Congressional
Budget Office, as the second session of the 106th Congress produced
almost 900 legislative proposals that required a CBO federal cost
estimate. Almost 80 percent of those proposals also required state and
local, and private-sector mandate estimates for a total of 1,400
mandated estimates. Overall, the number of cost estimates and unfunded
mandate estimates increased by 30 percent over the fiscal year 1999
level.
In particular, we prepared estimates for a large number of
proposals related to major health care initiatives, including the
establishment of a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare, improving
the long-term financial status of Medicare, and modifying provider
payment rules established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. These
proposals are large and complex, and analysis of them strained the
capacity of our health units and reinforced our efforts to add
resources in this area.
Other major legislative initiatives in fiscal year 2000 that
required analysis by CBO included the Agriculture Risk Protection Act
of 2000 (crop insurance); the Conservation and Reinvestment Act; the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001; the Water Resources Development Act of 2000; and major education
initiatives. Education legislation reviewed by CBO during 2000 included
the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation's
Students Act, the Educational Opportunities Act, the Students Results
Act, the Educational Partnership Act of 1999, and the IDEA Full Funding
Act of 2000.
In addition, the agency continued to provide timely responses to
requests from the Congressional leadership and the budget committees.
We also devoted resources to the task of analyzing the long-term
budget outlook and the longer-term budget prospects associated with the
Social Security and Medicare programs. Our relatively new Long-Term
Modeling Group (established in 1999) developed the first versions of
models designed to generate 75-year cost estimates of proposed changes
to the Social Security program. To strengthen this area, we recently
convened an advisory group to help us with our modeling efforts.
We began to examine the concept of the ``New Economy,'' convening a
conference of experts to examine trends in productivity, the effects of
new technology on certain industries, and the implications of
relatively strong productivity growth in 1995 through 1999 for monetary
and fiscal policies. And we provided analyses in support of
Congressional consideration of proposals relating to patients' rights,
increasing the number of people covered by health insurance, military
health care, national missile defense, federal national disaster
insurance, and increasing the federal minimum wage.
The Congress's view of the quality of the agency's assistance in
the budget process is made clear by the numerous times CBO was asked to
testify and the many occasions on which it was asked by the Congress to
provide answers on budget questions in the waning hours of the fiscal
year 2001 budget process. During the year, CBO officials testified 14
times for a variety of committees, including several appearances before
the House and Senate Budget Committees, House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, House Ways and Means Committee, and other House and Senate
legislative committees.
In 2000, we continued to publish our Budget Options report
detailing hundreds of possible methods for reducing spending or raising
revenues. The report also included a discussion of major proposals to
increase spending or cut taxes that have been prompted by the emergence
of large budget surpluses.
WORK PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001 AND 2002
As always, our emphasis must be on producing the budget
projections, cost estimates, and other information that the Congress
relies on to do its work. In particular, issues related to the
projected budget surpluses have been prominent this year, and Social
Security and Medicare reforms are expected to continue as priorities
during this Congress. Tax issues will also likely require significant
effort as the 2002 budget process unfolds.
In fiscal year 2001, CBO will produce long-range cost estimates and
impact analyses of Social Security for both current law and what is
expected to be a large number of reform proposals. As part of the
agencywide effort to analyze Social Security reform options, we will
expand and enhance our actuarial and microsimulation models for
estimating Social Security over the long term (75 years). Our analytic
agenda includes integrating analysis of the long-term macroeconomic
effects and fiscal (budgeting) implications into our long-range models.
And we will begin development of long-range models for estimating
Medicare. We anticipate a continuing high level of interest in
estimating Medicare proposals over both the short and the long terms.
Other important policy work that will be completed in 2001 includes
an analysis of the effect of estate and gift taxes on charitable
giving; a primer on Social Security; an analysis of the California
electricity crisis; and a study of military operations and maintenance
accounts.
Also important to our work this year and next will be our access to
new data on income, Social Security, and Medicare. That data will
enhance our long-term modeling efforts but will also put demands on our
staff and ADP resources as we integrate, process, and safeguard these
new resources.
INTERNAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, PROGRESS, AND PRIORITIES FOR 2001 AND
2002
In addition to focusing directly on its mission, CBO, like any
effective and highly successful organization, must devote resources to
attracting talented people, developing their skills, and properly
equipping them. It must also organize its key work processes to be as
efficient as possible.
Enhancing Recruitment and Retention.--During the next two years, we
will expand on the initiatives undertaken last year to identify, hire,
and retain a highly talented and diverse workforce by strengthening our
recruitment efforts, investing more in training and staff development,
and reconfiguring our space so that it better meets the needs of our
staff.
--Strengthen Recruitment Strategy.--Our goal has been to focus our
efforts on quickly filling key vacancies, particularly in hard-
to-attract disciplines, while building a more diverse
workforce.
In 1998 the agency experienced an unusual number of vacancies and
was unable to quickly replace the individuals who left.
Consequently staffing dropped from 227 full-time-equivalent
positions in 1997 to 205 in December 1998. We recovered
somewhat in 1999, but still ended the year far short of our
staffing needs. We met our mandates, but the shortfall created
a hardship for our staff, and it meant that our ability to
produce nonstatutory cost estimates and major studies suffered.
Early in fiscal year 2000, a CBO task force made significant
recommendations on how to build a better recruitment program.
As a result, we created a recruitment program that allowed us
to fill vacancies more quickly and to reach our fiscal year
2000 staffing objective of 225 staff years. Our program
included:
--raising offering salaries for new Ph.D. and Master's candidates
and enhancing our internship programs;
--simplifying our application process and drastically shortening
the time from application to interview and job offer;
--creating a high-quality recruitment brochure for our college
recruitment program and strengthening the employment pages
on our Web site (www.cbo.gov);
--developing new systems to track recruitment contacts and job
applicants; and
--more aggressively advertising critical vacancies and beginning
the use of recruitment bonuses in hard-to-fill
specialities.
We also expanded the number of schools where we recruit and began
sending recruitment materials to more institutions with relevant
programs in economics and public policy, and to a wider variety of
schools with diverse student populations.
In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, we will further expand our campus
visits to include more schools with diverse student populations,
provide additional training to staff on effective recruitment
techniques, complete our automation efforts, and implement an expanded
training and orientation program for new employees.
Furthermore, to help retain high-performing employees and to be
more competitive in recruiting, we are providing larger merit pay
increases to entry-level employees and continuing what we believe is a
very successful awards program for outstanding performers. The awards
program benefitted roughly a third of our permanent employees in fiscal
year 2000.
--Improve CBO's Training Programs.--Our goals is to improve
management and job skills by investing in our people through
training, education, and professional development.
CBO has always invested in the job skills of its employees, but
the amount spent on job training and professional development
has been far less than that of other high-impact organizations,
and much less than recommended by management and training
experts. CBO spent less than 0.5 percent of its personnel costs
on training in 1999, compared with the 2 to 4 percent typical
of high-performing private firms that the agency competes with
for staff. In fiscal year 2000, we increased training
expenditures by nearly 30 percent (to a level still far short
of private-sector standards) while eliminating less cost-
effective training. We also undertook a more deliberate
assessment of needed training and began training managers in
leadership and communications skills. To date, we have provided
such leadership training to one-third of our managers.
During the remainder of 2001 and in 2002, we will maintain the
higher level of spending on training, education, and
professional development and intend to provide management
training to the remainder of our senior staff.
--Modernize and Revitalize the Working Environment.--Our goal is to
reconfigure and, where necessary, renovate offices to better
use our space and to provide a quality work environment for new
employees and those currently in inadequate space.
Most of CBO's space was configured shortly after the agency's
creation 25 years ago in a building designed primarily for file
storage, not human occupancy. At that time, there were few
desktop computers, many more support staff, less
specialization, and a less competitive employment marketplace.
Consequently, a significant percentage of our space was
configured for clerical staff, and many analysts had work space
that was in passageways or was otherwise undesirable. These
work spaces adapted poorly to computer technology; and
conference space, which is critical to the collaborative nature
of our work, was in short supply.
During fiscal year 2000, in cooperation with staff of the
Architect of the Capitol, we developed a range of strategies to
address our space problems, and we began to make modest
investments in our facilities. By June, we will have completed
the reconfiguration of roughly a dozen small office suites and
other areas constituting roughly 20 percent of our usable floor
space. The result will be about 50 offices renovated, with a
net gain of 18 private offices and three additional conference
areas. We also reduced the amount of wasted space and greatly
reduced the amount of space devoted to storage.
Because we will still have a significant number of employees in
substandard space, we plan to continue our renovation efforts
through at least the end of 2002 by that time we hope to have
renovated perhaps half of the remaining space. This should
allow us to create adequate offices for all our analytical
staff, eliminate poorly utilized space, and greatly improve the
appearance and livability of our offices.
Communications Priorities.--The value of CBO's work to the Congress
and the public derives from the quality, readability, and availability
of its products. While the demand for CBO's printed products remains
strong, the use of the electronic versions of the products on the
agency's Web site is growing significantly year to year. We plan to
improve both:
--CBO's Web Site.--Our goals are to respond to the growing demand for
electronic products and to enhance the site's functionality and
accessibility.
During fiscal year 2000, the content of CBO's Web site expanded
by a third, to nearly 2,700 documents. Activity on our site
nearly doubled since last year to a rate of roughly 9 million
hits, or more than 1 million page requests per year. And the
number of subscribers to our ListServer, which e-mails users
when documents in their area of interest have been posted,
increased by about 60 percent.
During the remainder of 2001 and into 2002, we plan a major
redesign of our Web site. We will undertake a survey of those
who use our material to identify needed improvements. More
immediate improvements will include making additional
publications from earlier years available on the site and
creating versions of important reports with advanced search
capabilities. We will also improve the Web site in less obvious
ways the ListServer will be enhanced so that customers can have
publications in addition to notices e-mailed to them; the site
will become more ``visible'' to outside search engines, thus
increasing public access to CBO's research; and the search
function will be made more user-friendly. Among visible
changes, visitors to the site will be able to customize the
first screen they see so that it emphasizes the information
they are most interested in, publications will be easier to
read on screen, and navigation will improve.
--CBO's Publications and Production Processes.--Our goals are to
produce high-quality publications that are easily identified as
CBO products and to improve production processes for
efficiency.
As usage of CBO's Web site has increased, we have been able to
print fewer copies of reports and reduce inventory costs. For
example, printing costs for our three major mandated reports
were about one-quarter lower last year than the year before and
about half as much as two years earlier. New reproduction
technology has improved the quality and timeliness of reports
and testimony produced in-house, while lowering our costs.
Consequently, for several reports last year, the initial copies
produced in-house to meet tight Congressional deadlines were of
much higher quality and resembled the final copies from
commercial printers. We have improved some of our processes for
graphics and now do most of the design and production work in-
house.
During 2001, we will continue to modernize the appearance of our
publications and achieve a consistent and professional look. We
will also improve the production underlying our publications by
centralizing the work and streamlining processes. Similarly, by
revising additional graphics processes, we will produce more
finished graphics in-house, saving additional time and money.
Technology and Process Redesign.--As noted earlier, highly
effective organizations must build a skilled staff and then provide
them with the technology and work processes necessary to support them.
In exit interviews and focus groups with current staff, technology
emerges as an area where CBO excels compared to other places people
have worked. It is also critical to our ability to do the highly
complex analyses that underlie much of CBO's work.
--Maintain Our Technological Edge.--Our goal is to continue to
provide the best technology systems economically available to
support the agency's mission while constantly improving the
performance of those systems and employee satisfaction.
During fiscal year 2000 and the first half of 2001, we upgraded
most desktop computers and for the first time achieved an ideal
hardware/software configuration for every employee. We also
improved our network communications, strengthened network
security with a firewall and other changes, added nearly a
terabyte of needed data storage, and strengthened system
reliability with more redundancy and better disaster recovery
capability. We also moved our mission-critical server room to
the 6th floor of the Ford House Office Building, which has
emergency power and air conditioning and a higher level of
physical security.
In the past few years, we have invested steadily in our
technology to the point where, as mentioned earlier, every
employee has up-to-date hardware and software, and our internal
network and data communications are among the best in
government. That level of accomplishment allows us to reduce
new hardware and software spending somewhat in fiscal years
2001 and 2002 to accommodate major systems development efforts.
Thus, in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, we will:
--migrate our mission-critical Budget Analysis Data System to a new
platform;
--automate or replace older systems for administrative processes,
including ones for project tracking, requisition and
procurement, invoice tracking, supply distribution,
inventory, applicant tracking, and human resource
management functions;
--further develop our intranet as a primary delivery mechanism for
internal services and communications;
--update a limited number of network and desktop software packages
and further improve computer system reliability and
security; and
--develop a secure facility to house confidential and sensitive
data we expect to utilize in our modeling efforts.
--Streamline Procurement.--Our goal is to modernize our procurement
process so that it is a streamlined, paperless process with
greater emphasis on competition.
During fiscal year 2000, we investigated processes and supporting
software used by other organizations and began redesigning our
current procurement process. We are now implementing a new
automated system for processing purchase requests, issuing
purchase orders, and tracking obligations, orders, and payments
to vendors.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, during the last two years we have worked very hard to
meet the needs of the Congress and to rebuild our staff during a period
of great competition in the labor market. To do this, we have raised
starting salaries for new graduates and undertaken a variety of efforts
to make CBO a more desirable employer for talented economists and
policy analysts. The budget increase you provided last year remedied
our earlier financial problems and, along with our extensive efforts to
reduce our nonpayroll costs, has allowed us to make good progress.
Nonetheless, we are still having difficulty attracting new Ph.D.s, and
we must maintain competitive wages for all our analysts in order to
retain them. Our budget request will allow us to continue our progress
and meet the goals we have set for ourselves.
Appendix
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR NEW LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY--FISCAL YEAR
2002 BUDGET REQUEST
Coverage Under the Training Act
Sec. 102. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may,
by regulation, make applicable such provisions of chapter 41 of title
5, United States Code, as the Director determines necessary to provide
hereafter for training of individuals employed by the Congressional
Budget Office.
(b) The implementing regulations shall provide for training that,
in the determination of the Director, is consistent with the training
provided by agencies subject to chapter 41 of title 5, United States
Code.
(c) Any recovery of debt owed to the Congressional Budget Office
under this section and its implementing regulations shall be credited
to the appropriations account available for training employees of the
Office at the time of recovery.
Sale of Surplus Property
Sec. 103. Section 105(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 1996 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 606(a)), is amended by striking ``or
discarding.'' and inserting ``sale, trade-in, or discarding.'', and by
adding at the end the following: ``Amounts received for the sale or
trade-in of personal property shall be credited to funds available for
the operations of the Congressional Budget Office and be available for
the costs of acquiring the same or similar property. Such funds shall
be available for such purposes during the fiscal year in which received
and the following fiscal year.''
Repayment of Student Loans
Sec. 104. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may,
in order to recruit or retain qualified personnel, establish and
maintain hereafter a program under which the Office may agree to repay
(by direct payments on behalf of the employee) all or a portion of any
student loan previously taken out by such employee.
(b) The Director may, by regulation, make applicable such
provisions of section 5379 of title 5, United States Code as the
Director determines necessary to provide for such program.
(c) The regulations shall provide the amount paid by the Office may
not exceed--
(1) $6,000 for any employee in any calendar year; or
(2) a total of $40,000 in the case of any employee.
(d) The Office may not reimburse an employee for any repayments
made by such employee prior to the Office entering into an agreement
under this section with such employee.
(e) Any amount repaid by, or recovered from, an individual under
this section and its implementing regulations shall be credited to the
appropriation account available for salaries and expenses of the Office
at the time of repayment or recovery.
Educational Gift Fund
Sec. 105. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may
establish an educational program of conferences and research
fellowships designed to advance the learning and capabilities of the
Congressional Budget Office to assist the Congress through economic or
financial forecasting, projections, and analyses, and statistical
studies and modeling.
(b) The Director may accept, hold, and administer gifts and
bequests of money for the benefit of the program. Gifts and bequests
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States in a trust fund
called ``Congressional Budget Office Educational Fund''. For the
purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, money accepted under
this subsection is considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of
the United States.
(c) Sums in the Fund shall be available, without regard to fiscal
year, for--
(1) the costs of educational conferences concerning the work
of the Office;
(2) the award of fellowships for the conduct of research in
areas within the mission of the Office; and
(3) the costs of a program providing for study or
uncompensated work experience of employees of the Office as
provided in subsection (g).
(d) Under the program, the Director may award fellowships to
individuals and may accept voluntary services of individuals without
regard to section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, to conduct
research in areas within the mission of the Congressional Budget
Office. The term of each fellow shall be for 1 year, and may be renewed
for a term of 1 additional year.
(e) Research fellows under the fellows program shall, for purposes
of rules of ethics, including those related to conflicts of interest
and standards of conduct, be considered to be an employees of the House
of Representatives. For purposes of financial disclosure, such
individuals shall be considered to be officers or employees of the
Congress under section 109(13) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. app Sec. 109(13)).
(f) An individual performing voluntary services under the fellows
program may receive pay and other benefits, including stipends,
allowances, travel and subsistence expenses, from a non-partisan, tax-
exempt organization described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3)).
(g) The Director may, by regulation, make applicable such
provisions of section 3396(c) of title 5, United States Code, as the
Director determines necessary to establish a program providing
opportunities for employees of the Office to engage in study or
uncompensated work experience which will contribute to the employee's
development and effectiveness.
EDUCATIONAL GIFT FUND
Senator Bennett. Let's talk about your educational gift
fund for a minute. You indicate that this will be funded with
gifts and bequests to the fund. You're aware, I'm sure, of the
criticism that has been raised that possibly this could give
the appearance of some kind of conflict of interest. Just
explore that with me.
Mr. Crippen. Yes. I understand the concern. I can't--I'm
not certain I can--assuage all of those concerns, but one would
clearly look for foundation-like support that was viewed as
neutral and non-political, that didn't have an axe to grind in
Washington, and that didn't take public policy positions.
Senator Bennett. Give me an example of such a foundation.
Mr. Crippen. The Ford Foundation, perhaps, but it is
foundation funding like that that I had in mind, and there are
a number of ways that we could, I think, help with any concerns
about appearance. For example, any grant that we might receive
would come back to you for approval before we accepted it,
before it was deposited in this fund. So the arrangement would
be similar to reprogramming, which would have you officially
sign off on anything that we accepted. So you would get another
cut at whatever it was that we're doing and what the purpose
was for the funds--the grant. And so I'm not sure I can assuage
all of those concerns, but I'm hopeful that I can. What we're
trying to do, as our material suggests, is create a way to fund
some things that aren't as traditional for Congress to fund, in
terms of personnel development and training. We're an academic-
like institution. Our competition in town is the Fed and the
World Bank, but our primary competition for Ph.D.s is the
academic world. So if we could do things like accept people and
give them a half-time schedule for the first 3 months to finish
their dissertation--the Fed does that--if we could let them go
outside for 2 or 3 months to another institution and do
research, or collaborative research with someone--the Fed and
others do that--we could be more competitive. So it is that
kind of thing we're trying to do, as well as develop the
ability to have more educational conferences on pertinent
issues and the ability to bring in outside experts to help
inform our assumptions about how the world works, because some
of those folks have a better sense of the real world than we
do.
Senator Bennett. These are all salutary things. Why
shouldn't the Congress just fund it?
Mr. Crippen. It's possible that you might want to. Some of
them, I just assumed, frankly, that you wouldn't want to or
that some would be difficult to justify, especially in a tight
budget environment--for instance, giving people a part-time
schedule to go do something else or 3 months or 6 months off on
a sabbatical-like arrangement. It is difficult, I understand,
for you and for us to justify paying someone to not
specifically do the job for which he or she was hired. So in
that sense I think there are some things that this grant
funding may be appropriate for, and certainly there is a
willingness on the outside to fund them. But they could equally
be justified for appropriated funds.
Senator Bennett. My father used to say, ``We legislate at
the highest level at which we can obtain a majority,'' and I'm
not sure I could obtain a majority for this view, but my own
view would be that we should fund this entirely out of the
Congress and say, ``This is way things are done in this
particular agency.''
Mr. Crippen. We will develop a very specific proposal for
what we have in mind and come back to you so you have a sense
of that arrangement and the potential cost to the federal
budget.
Senator Bennett. Well, I will leave it at that.
Mr. Crippen. In any event, foundation-like support would
not be, in our view, a lot of money.
Senator Bennett. It is not a lot of money, but the
appearance of some kind of influence could be there, and also
the sense that someone who funded this might look to CBO for
recruits for their own staff later on and use the fact that
they were a funder of it as a leverage to try to pry some of
your people away. And if we said, no, this was all done by
federal money----
Mr. Crippen. Federal funding is certainly a much cleaner
solution.
Senator Bennett. All right. I think we have exhausted all
of our concerns. If we have any more, or other members of the
subcommittee have them, we'll be in touch with you in writing.
Mr. Crippen. We'll be happy to respond any way you want.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTION
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you for your public service. I know you could make more
money, and maybe have more fun, on the outside.
Mr. Crippen. Well, as we say, some days are better than
others.
Senator Bennett. That's true of elected officials, as well.
Thank you.
[The following question was not asked at the hearing, but
was submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE EDUCATIONAL FUND
Question. If the Congress were to provide appropriated funds to
support the activities envisioned in your proposal to establish a CBO
educational fund, instead of authorizing CBO to accept private
donations, what new authority would be required and how much money
would be needed in the first year.
Answer. In the first year, CBO could effectively use $350,000 to
carry out the activities under the new authority. This amount would
fund six to eight highly specialized educational conferences attended
by CBO employees and other legislative branch analysts; one highly
competitive fellowship for an academic economist to perform targeted
research while in residence at CBO; and one or two CBO employees'
pursuit of long-term training or developmental work experience expected
to benefit economic or budget-related work essential to CBO in
accomplishing its mission. If successful, and deemed cost-effective,
the program could grow modestly over a five-year period by perhaps 5
percent per year in financial terms.
Legislative language that could be used to fund this new authority
with an appropriation rather than gifts follows.
(a) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may
establish and hereafter maintain an educational program
designed to advance the learning and capabilities of the
Congressional Budget Office to assist the Congress through
economic or financial forecasting, projections, and analyses,
and statistical studies and modeling.
(b) Educational conferences concerning the work of the
Congressional Budget Office may be conducted in non-Government
facilities or in Government facilities under either the control
of the Congressional Budget Office or other agencies. The
Director, from appropriations or other funds available to the
agency, may pay all expenses necessary for attendance at
educational conferences by invited employees of the
Congressional Budget Office, employees of other agencies, or
non-Government personnel.
(c) The Director may award fellowships to individuals and may
accept voluntary services of individuals without regard to
section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, to conduct
research in areas within the mission of the Congressional
Budget Office. The term of each fellow shall be for 1 year, and
may be renewed for a term of 1 additional year.
(d) Research fellows under the fellows program shall, for
purposes of rules of ethics, including those related to
conflicts of interest and standards of conduct, be considered
to be employees of the House of Representatives. For purposes
of financial disclosure, such individuals shall be considered
to be officers or employees of the Congress under section
109(13) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. app
4, Sec. 109(13)).
(e) The Director may, by regulation, make applicable such
provisions of section 3396(c) of title 5, United States Code,
as the Director determines necessary to establish a program
providing opportunities for employees of the Office to engage
in study or work experience that will contribute to the
employees' development and effectiveness.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Bennett. Our next subcommittee meeting will be next
Wednesday at 10 a.m. in Room 124 of the Dirkson Building. And
testifying at that hearing will be the Senate Sargeant at Arms,
the U.S. Capitol Police board, and the Office of Compliance.
There being no further business, the subcommittee is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Thursday, May 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
May 16.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett, Stevens, and Durbin.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
DOORKEEPER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LIZ McALHANY, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS
RICK EDWARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Good morning to everyone. The subcommittee
will come to order. It's a demonstration of the fact that
people are a little more interested in us than they used to be
because of the visitor's center. We have a little more
attention. We require a bigger room.
We meet today to take testimony from the Sergeant at Arms,
Mr. James Ziglar, on the Sergeant at Arms fiscal year 2002
budget request.
This will be Mr. Ziglar's last appearance here, assuming a
favorable report out of the Senate on his new assignment. We're
not too anxious to see you leave, Jim, but I will vote for your
confirmation in your new opportunity.
He will then appear again as the chairman of the Capitol
Police board followed by Chief James Varey.
Finally, we'll hear from the new executive director of the
Office of Compliance, Bill Thompson.
We'll go forward in that order. Jim Ziglar, Sergeant at
Arms, is requesting $135 million, an increase of $27.9 million
over the current year. A substantial portion of this requested
increase is attributable to technology requirements, the
continued upgrades in the Recording Studio, data networks, and
technology infrastructure. The total staffing of the Sergeant
at Arms would increase by 24 employees to a total of 779.
The additional employees coupled with pay raises for
existing employees results in $4.3 million or 12 percent
increase in the salary request.
Mr. Ziglar, we welcome you here and look forward to what
you have to tell us.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very pleased
to have the opportunity to be here to present the 2002 funding
request for the Sergeant at Arms.
I would like to introduce the two folks with me. To my
right is Liz McAlhany, who I think most folks in the Senate
know. Liz is now the new Deputy Sergeant at Arms. She took
Loretta Symms' place.
And I'm happy to report that Loretta is doing very well in
retirement. I called her the other day, and she told me I was
interfering with her reading a magazine, by calling. She's
enjoying her retirement, and Liz has done a tremendous job by
stepping into Loretta's shoes.
Liz, notwithstanding her young looks, has been in the
Senate for almost 24 years. She has done a little bit of
everything in the Senate. She worked for a member, Senator
Danforth, and she has over the years, among other things, been
head of what we used to call the computer center--which has
given her a real good handle on the technology issues--as well
as head of the customer relations area.
She was head of customer relations before coming over to be
administrative assistant. When Loretta left, it was obvious
that Liz was the right candidate to be the deputy, and she is
just doing a terrific job. We're very pleased.
To my left is Rick Edwards, somebody who is newer to the
Senate. Rick came a couple of years ago. We recruited him out
of the private sector to take over what we call Central
Operations, which is one of the bigger management challenges
we've had at the Sergeant at Arms operations. Rick did a
terrific job there, and I'll talk a little bit about a couple
of his accomplishments later.
When the administrative assistant job opened up, he was the
logical choice. He now has general management responsibilities
in the Sergeant at Arms operation. He's doing a great job, and
we're very pleased with Rick and his performance.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that this
is my last appearance before this committee, at least in terms
of the Sergeant at Arms role, and I wanted to, before I launch
off into some other things about the Sergeant at Arms, tell you
how much of an honor it has been to serve you and your
colleagues as Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. It is a unique
job, certainly historically unique job, and there have been
fewer Sergeants at Arms in history than there have been
presidents. So I've been very honored to do that.
I particularly want to express my appreciation to the many
loyal, devoted employees in the Sergeant at Arms operation.
They've been terrific to work with, very responsive, and
they're dedicated and loyal to the Senate.
Also, I want to express my appreciation to you and this
committee for the support you've given the many initiatives
I've thrown out to you in the last 2\1/2\ years.
And also, although this is not the Rules Committee, I would
like to express my appreciation on the record to the Rules
Committee for their support of our many initiatives.
We've accomplished a lot, I believe, in the last 2\1/2\
years, but none of that would have been possible without the
support of this committee and the Rules Committee.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, how are you, sir? I was just
expressing my gratitude to you gentlemen and to the Senate for
the opportunity to serve as Sergeant at Arms. And assuming I
get confirmed, I won't be doing this testimony any more, but it
has been a real pleasure and a real honor. And we appreciate
your support and the committee's support throughout the last
2\1/2\ years.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I have prepared testimony that I would like
to have put in the record, if that's possible.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. Ziglar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2002
funding request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.
I am accompanied by: Liz McAlhany, Deputy Sergeant at Arms; and Rick
Edwards, Administrative Assistant.
Before discussing our fiscal year 2002 funding request, I would
like to update the Committee on several of the major initiatives which
we have undertaken during the past two years. Of course, none of these
initiatives would have been possible or their implementation successful
without the continued support of this Committee.
During my tenure, I have attempted to instill a ``business
approach'' in the Sergeant at Arms organization. We have looked into
all facets of our operations and sought opportunities for improvement.
We have left no stones unturned.
We began our review with the SAA operating structure. The year
prior to my arrival, the Sergeant at Arms had 827 FTE's and, in my
view, too many layers of management. We performed ``Top down, bottom
up'' reviews of every department and recognized that we could elevate
performance and reduce our costs by transitioning the work environment
from one that was hierarchal and redundant to one that is customer
focused and process driven. We have eliminated two layers of management
and seventy-two FTE's through consolidation and attrition, saving over
$3,000,000 in annual salary expenses.
We elevated expectations and standards of performance, holding our
staff accountable for their actions. Our compensation plan was
converted from one of entitlement to merit based. As a result,
productivity has increased and quality has improved.
Employee training and development have been key elements in
changing our culture. We have emphasized leadership, team building,
quality, and customer service as we increased the number of training
programs by 25 percent. We developed and employees participated in an
ongoing program entitled `` SAA C.A.R.E.S.,'' an acronym for Customers
Always Require Excellent Service. SAA C.A.R.E.S. embraces ``best
practices'' as we strive to create a work environment that encourages
zero defects, while making the experience for those we serve as
pleasant as possible.
Operationally, we discovered some troubling realities. Policies,
procedures and precedents were not readily available to those who
needed them. As a result, we tasked each department to document all
policies, procedures and precedents, and, now, a complete list of these
are compiled within my office. Additionally, I was shocked to learn
that a written, executable plan for continuing operations had not been
prepared for the Senate should the Senate Chamber, the Capitol Building
generally or the office buildings become uninhabitable. We have worked
for the past two years with the U.S. Capitol Police, Architect of the
Capitol, General Services Administration, and the Secretary of the
Senate in developing and documenting a viable Continuation of
Operations Plan (COOP). We anticipate that the plan will be in place
within the next 60 to 90 days.
We have made improvements in our operations that have a direct and
immediate positive impact on the Senate offices we serve. One of the
best examples involves Senate office mailing expenses. We were able to
save Senate offices $1.7 million in postage expenses last year by being
proactive in working with Senate staff in the design and addressing of
mail. Mailing expenses will continue to decline during 2001. Our team
members were able to secure, at no charge, surplus mail sorting
equipment valued at $300,000 from the Department of the Navy. This
equipment was installed during February of this year and, based on
March and April performance, we have been able to further reduce
average mailing costs of letters addressed to constituents by sixteen
percent. This translates into estimated postage savings to Senate
offices of an additional $250,000 annually.
We are performing tasks that in the past were outsourced. A case in
point is the Legislative Information System, where existing SAA
employees have taken responsibility for daily maintenance, saving $2
million annually.
Financially, we have taken an all encompassing approach, looking at
both the short term and the long term. When I arrived here, we had no
executive level process for tracking actual versus budgeted expenses on
a monthly basis. We now generate monthly financial reports and conduct
monthly review meetings with each department director to ensure that we
are upholding our commitments to the Senate community. We have
instituted an ``evergreen'' budget process that requires those same
directors to forecast expenses for each of the next five years. The
evergreen budget is a high level tool for forecasting future needs. It
is used to identify the systems to be modernized; the cost of
modernization; the priority for modernization; and the schedule for
implementation.
As part of our long range planning process, we are moving to
actively manage the upgrade or replacement of every major asset, system
and network. In some cases, capacity utilization will drive
replacements; in others, expanded service offerings; in yet others, new
technology may render the existing systems too costly and obsolete. We
are developing a program for a more systematic and rational cycle to
avoid large technological and service leaps, which are then followed by
a standstill period until another critical mass develops and another
quantum leap in infrastructure improvements is required. We need to do
a better job of anticipating the Senate's needs. I believe that a well
developed and well executed asset replacement program is an important
tool for managers.
We have adopted a project management approach to presenting our
proposals to this Committee and to the Committee on Rules and
Administration. We study the underlying problem, develop a project plan
that solves the problem, obtain cost estimates and time frames on the
plan components and make the business case for our recommendations.
Both this Committee and the Rules Committee should expect that we will
always come prepared to justify our project initiatives and convey
their value to the Senate.
We have reviewed our ongoing operations to find opportunities to
perform our tasks better, faster and in a less expensive manner. For
example, we have requested proposals from vendors seeking a better deal
on existing contracts. We recently signed contracts with our
correspondence management system vendors which have resulted in annual
savings of up to thirty percent of our annual maintenance costs.
Recently, we replaced a highly customized financial system with off-
the-shelf software that has elevated staff productivity while reducing
maintenance and support costs by $100,000 annually.
We have taken steps to simplify our acquisition process. Purchase
orders generated by the SAA cost approximately $100 to process,
regardless of dollar value. Often, the cost to create a purchase order
was greater than the item to be purchased. We now use a credit card for
purchases under $1,500, thereby saving $50,000 annually. Additionally,
we have consolidated maintenance agreements with our vendors, thereby
reducing the number of purchase orders that are being generated.
We are drafting better Requests For Proposals (RFPs), clearly
defining expectations and holding suppliers accountable for their
performance. A good example was the recent acquisition of our
electronic printing equipment where we negotiated one year maintenance
warranties versus the traditional 90-day warranties, saving
approximately $145,000. Additionally, price increases for maintenance
contracts are now tied to the Producer Price Index (PPI). This has
limited our exposure regarding the amount that vendors can charge for
their services and is contrasted to the past practice of allowing the
suppliers to arbitrarily set prices. Furthermore, the past strategy in
acquiring printing and photocopy equipment was ``lease to buy.'' We
have opted to purchase this equipment, thereby avoiding interest
charges and saving over $900,000 during the next five years.
The Senate's systems and infrastructure have presented, and will
continue to present, significant challenges. Beginning with the entire
Y2K effort almost two years ago, and continuing through the end of the
last fiscal year, we have worked with this Committee to identify
opportunities that would enable the Senate to make significant
improvements in its system and services. Since then, we have begun to
migrate the Senate Recording Studio to an all digital format and will
complete the first phase of the project during the summer recess.
We have been working closely with the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, the Appropriations Committee, and a number of Senate
offices on the major technology project to replace the Senate's
electronic mail system, cc:Mail. With the exploding number of
electronic mail messages being sent to and from the Senate, we believe
this technology upgrade needs to be completed as soon as possible. The
direction of this project has changed dramatically during this year
and, once we have completed a thorough test of the proposed
architecture, we will begin implementing the new system, based on
Microsoft's products, Exchange and Outlook.
In the photocopy, printing and graphics area, we made a timely and
forceful move to replace outdated equipment with an electronic printing
network that will connect Senate PC's to our copy centers, enabling
Senate staff to send electronic files much as they send documents to a
printer located on their desk. Currently, most of our copiers do not
have networking capabilities and original hard copy documents must be
physically delivered to the copy centers for duplication. This project
will create a modern high speed network between all copy centers and
Senate desktop workstations by connecting the equipment to the Senate
Data Communications Network, thus reducing labor requirements
throughout the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms operation. Digital
electronic printers will replace copiers and enable all reproduced
printed matter to be originals, eliminating the normal degradation
associated with photocopy technology. The digital printers will have
other advanced automated features that will improve quality and
efficiency, while reducing turnaround time.
This brings me to a point that I would like to reiterate. Much of
what we do adds to the productivity of member and committee staff. For
example, a few of the systems and services that we have deployed or
will shortly deploy that will greatly increase the productivity of
office staff include: the electronic printing network already mentioned
will offer a better quality product with reduced effort on the part of
office staff; an e-mail filtering system will enable offices to filter
and categorize hundreds or thousands of e-mail messages based on set
criteria instead of having to review each individual message to
determine an appropriate first response; anti-virus software can now be
updated in a more centrally managed process, over ninety offices having
taken advantage of this capability enabling office system
administrators to update all anti-virus software at once; and we have
developed a process for preparing press releases for posting on member
office web sites.
We have elevated the performance of our technology team. A case in
point is the Senate.gov web site that our employees created. These
technical professionals received a Federal Design Achievement Award
from the National Endowments for the Arts, only one of two government
web sites so recognized. The award noted that:
The new Senate website humanizes the venerable institution of
the U.S. Senate by making its everyday activities and rich
history readily accessible to the public. Three objectives
guided the designers in creating the site: (1) to provide a
gateway to the home pages of individual Senators, (2) to make
it easy to find legislative information, and (3) to serve as a
library for the vast historical, art, and architectural
archives of the Senate.
The multi-layered site provides a broad range of useful
information, from the Senate's calendar of activities to
information on the status of current bills and treaties.
It also provides interesting historical facts . . . and seeks
to dispel several myths. And through the virtual tour--the
viewer can explore the U.S. Capitol without ever leaving home.
We have been doing our work with a smaller work force. Seventy-two
fewer authorized FTE's than when I arrived. Last year, we put in place
a program to reduce staffing levels and have eliminated much of the fat
that had existed. We have achieved the objectives of that plan. This
year, you will note an increase in our request for authorized staffing
and necessary funding. These increases largely are targeted toward
specific network and systems maintenance functions which are critical
to providing the Senate with secure, efficient networks and
applications. At this point, I would like to ask my Deputy, Liz
McAlhany, to discuss the details of the major projects that the Senate
has tasked us to complete, as well as the details and initiatives
contained in the 2002 budget.
Thank you, Jim. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I too
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. The new
technologies that Jim has referenced are not the only major initiatives
that we are addressing.
As Jim noted earlier, the Senate has approved a new electronic mail
system. This system ultimately will affect every office and committee
and every Senate employee. This is a major undertaking to replace a
critical system. E-mail traffic into and out of the Senate has
increased sixfold in the past two years. Web sites with easy to use
mailing lists or forwarding capabilities have proliferated and created
large mail volumes of unpredictable frequency on a wide variety of
issues. We see no end to this and are prepared to handle greater
volumes. In January we could process 20,000 messages per hour. Today we
can process 50,000 messages per hour; in June we will have the capacity
to process 75,000 messages per hour.
We have increased the capacity of the computers that first receive
incoming e-mail and we are developing and testing an e-mail product
that is designed to filter and categorize incoming messages to Senate
offices. This system will enable offices to efficiently reply to these
messages in the manner most appropriate to each office's practices.
Converting the Senate Recording Studio to a digital format is a
significant undertaking. The five phase plan begins this year with the
conversion of the Senate Television to High Definition Television and
the installation of an audio/video/text browsing system on the
Intranet. Both projects will be completed this fall. The second year of
the plan will focus on the studio, news servers for editing playback,
and the first of three phases of the centralized control facility. This
facility will enable the studio to meet the requirements of the Senate
for supporting committee broadcasts and multimedia. The third year will
be to convert the radio operation to digital technology and complete
phase two of the centralized control facility. The fourth year of the
plan will be for the final phase of the centralized control station
deployment and the design and purchase of equipment for the studio
control stations and core facility. The fifth year will be for the
installation of the studio control stations and core facility. Because
our experience leads us to believe that we have the capability to
accelerate the project, we are requesting funding in fiscal year 2002
to cover the second and third years of the five year plan.
In developing the Budget Request before the Committee, we
recognized that significant challenges lie ahead. We must complete the
implementation and delivery of the Recording Studio and printing
upgrade projects. We must complete the e-mail system on time and within
our budget. Finally, we must put in place the infrastructure, in
staffing levels and skills and in equipment, to operate, monitor and
maintain these increasingly complex systems in a secure and effective
manner.
I would like to discuss the philosophy of our budget process and
then the details of the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.
The Fiscal year 2002 Budget Request was constructed from the bottom
up with every line-item examined in detail. We view the budget as an
active management tool to help us achieve our broader financial and
operating goals.
In order to help us understand and manage our cost structure and
our operations, we divided the budget into four distinct types of
costs, a practice that we instituted for the fiscal year 2001 budget:
General Operations and Maintenance, Mandated Allowances & Allotments,
Technology Capital Investment and Nondiscretionary Items. Each of these
budget areas cover a distinct component of the SAA operations.
Our Budget Request reflects the needs and requests of our Senate
customers. Members of the Senate, individually and collectively,
continue to make clear to us that they require a modern technological
infrastructure to support the operations of their offices. They have
requested additional network capacity in Washington, D.C. and the state
offices, an improved messaging infrastructure, enhanced information
systems and physical security, integration of the Internet e-mail with
the Correspondence Management Systems, and office productivity tools.
Our Budget Request includes funding for these and other initiatives to
satisfy the Senate's requirements.
fiscal year 2002 budget request
OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS--UNITED STATES SENATE--EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Fiscal Fiscal ---------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations &
Maintenance:
Salaries................ $34,811 $39,082 $4,271 12.3
Expenses................ 19,767 21,544 1,777 9.0
-------------------------------------------
Total General 54,578 60,626 6,048 11.1
Operations &
Maintenance..........
===========================================
Mandated Allowances & 42,245 49,952 7,707 18.2
Allotments.................
Technology Capital 7,710 21,433 13,723 178.0
Investment.................
Nondiscretionary Items...... 2,589 2,975 386 14.9
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL................. 107,122 134,986 27,864 26.0
===========================================
Staffing.................... 755 779 24 3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total budget request for fiscal year 2002 is $134,986,000, up
$27,864,000 or 26.0 percent. This significant increase continues the
programs to upgrade our Recording Studio, data networks and technology
infrastructure. Funding also is requested to provide improved support
to state offices in security, equipment and services. This request
includes the addition of 24 FTE's needed primarily to operate, maintain
and monitor our state office and D.C. networks and our enterprise-wide
applications on a round the clock basis.
We are requesting that funds in the amount of $11,354,000 for the
Recording Studio digital technology upgrade and relocation remain
available until expended; and that funds in the amount of $8,654,000
for the purchase of computer equipment and software for member offices
and committees remain available for obligation until September 30,
2004.
We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and
Maintenance (Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and
Allotments, Technology Capital Investment and Nondiscretionary Items.
General operations and maintenance salaries will increase
$4,271,000 or 12.3 percent to $39,082,000. The increase is to fund
positions ($1,369,000) that were authorized but not adequately funded
in the fiscal year 2001 salary appropriation, add 24 new positions
($1,305,000) in fiscal year 2002, and award a COLA ($1,597,000).
Staffing will increase from 755 to 779, including 16 in the Technology
Development Services Division to maintain the data network, new e-mail
systems, mainframe computer and central servers; to maintain the
integrity and security of Senate data; and other initiatives.
General operations and maintenance expenses for existing and new
services will increase $1,177,000 or 9.0 percent to $21,544,000. The
increase is to fund support to monitor and maintain the throughput and
security of our networks ($600,000); software maintenance for the new
mainframe computer and central servers, and tech support for the
financial system database ($506,000); higher costs of the Senate
Information Services program ($387,000); and improved service levels
for desktop computer help desk and support ($334,000).
Mandated allowances and allotments for computers, mail systems,
copiers, telephones and state offices will increase $7,707,000 or 18.2
percent to $49,952,000. The increase is to fund new mail systems
($1,950,000); a digital technology upgrade for the RPC and DPC studios
($1,800,000); increased rents in state offices ($1,246,000); state
office security enhancements ($1,744,000); and expanded telecom
services consisting of new phone sets and voice mail services in state
offices ($850,000).
Technology capital investment will increase $13,723,000 or 178.0
percent to $21,433,000. The fiscal year 2002 request funds the
Recording Studio digital upgrade project ($9,254,000), temporary
relocation of the Studio during construction of the Capitol Visitor
Center ($2,100,000); continued upgrades of the state office wide area
network ($1,550,000) and the Capitol Hill network ($2,025,000); upgrade
Senate telephone services in D.C. ($1,250,000); begin implementation of
the operations recovery plan ($500,000); data storage, back up and
disaster recovery initiatives ($492,000); improve data security
($300,000); and various other projects.
Nondiscretionary Items will increase $386,000 or 14.9 percent to
$2,975,000. The increase is to fund operational support for the
Financial Management Information system ($470,000), which was partially
offset by a decrease in Legislative Information System enhancements
($84,000). Nondiscretionary items support initiatives that are funded
by the Sergeant at Arms but managed by other entities.
fiscal year 2002 budget request by department
The following is a summary of the SAA's fiscal year 2002 budget
request on an organizational basis.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Department Fiscal Fiscal ---------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Operations.......... $8,925 $9,480 $555 6.2
Technology Development...... 19,930 25,807 5,877 29.5
IT Support Services......... 35,433 40,486 5,053 14.3
Office Support.............. 23,418 26,484 3,066 13.1
Capitol Division............ 14,214 27,302 13,088 92.1
Staff Offices............... 5,202 5,427 225 4.3
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL................. 107,122 134,986 27,864 26.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each department's budget is presented and analyzed in detail
beginning on the next page.
CENTRAL OPERATIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Central Operations Fiscal Fiscal ---------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations &
Maintenance:
Salaries................ $6,577 $7,037 $460 7.0
Expenses................ 2,348 2,443 95 4.0
-------------------------------------------
Total General 8,925 9,480 555 6.2
Operations &
Maintenance..........
===========================================
Mandated Allowances & 0 0 0 0.0
Allotments.................
Technology Capital 0 0 0 0.0
Investment.................
Nondiscretionary Items...... 0 0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL................. 8,925 9,480 555 6.2
===========================================
Staffing.................... 167 164 -3 -1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Operations Department consists of the Printing, Graphics and
Direct Mail, Parking and ID, and Hair Care Services branches.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase $460,000 or 7.0
percent to $7,037,000. The increase is to fund positions ($292,000)
that were authorized but not adequately funded in the fiscal year 2001
salary appropriation and award a COLA ($302,000). These increases were
partially offset by a reduction of three positions ($134,000) in fiscal
year 2002, two in Fleet Operations as a result of reconfiguring the
workforce, and one from Printing and Mailing Services, due to
efficiencies from new equipment. Overall staffing in fiscal year 2002
will decline by three to 164. Staffing includes 10 positions in Senate
Hair Care Services in fiscal year 2000 and 11 in fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002. The salaries for these positions are paid from a
revolving fund.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will increase $95,000 or 4
percent to $2,443,000. The increase is to fund the purchase of a new
truck ($52,000) that will replace a 14 year old vehicle, and the
maintenance of new equipment in Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail that
was purchased at the end of fiscal year 2000 and was under warranty in
fiscal year 2001.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Technology Development Fiscal Fiscal ---------------------
Services Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations &
Maintenance:
Salaries................ $5,837 $7,709 $1,872 32.1
Expenses................ 8,444 9,621 1,177 13.9
-------------------------------------------
Total General 14,281 17,330 3,049 21.4
Operations &
Maintenance..........
===========================================
Mandated Allowances & 0 0 0 0.0
Allotments.................
Technology Capital 3,060 5,502 2,442 79.8
Investment.................
Nondiscretionary Items...... 2,589 2,975 386 14.9
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL................. 19,930 25,807 5,877 29.5
===========================================
Staffing.................... 94 110 16 17.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Technology Development Services Department consists of the
Engineering, Enterprise IT Systems, Applications Development, Internet/
Intranet and Information Security Systems branches.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase by $1,872,000 or
32.1 percent to $7,709,000. The increase is to fund positions that were
authorized but not adequately funded in the fiscal year 2001 salary
appropriation ($417,000), a COLA ($331,000) and 16 new positions
($1,124,000). These additional positions are targeted to meet critical
network operations and security needs as well as support existing or
enhanced service levels in the applications area. Overall staffing in
fiscal year 2002 increases to 110 from 94.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will increase $1,177,000 or
13.9 percent to $9,621,000. The increase is for Network Operations
($193,000), Enterprise Systems Support ($506,000) and Information
Services ($387,000): (a) Network operations will increase to obtain
contract resources to maintain and monitor day-to-day operations and
upgrade equipment; (b) Enterprise Systems Support will increase to fund
the higher costs of software licenses, maintenance, and a new platform
for the upgraded mainframe computer; for additional products to support
the FMIS Web enabling project on the mainframe; and new database
software for the central servers (Web, e-mail and information
services); and (c) Information Services will increase to fund higher
service costs.
Technology Capital Investment will increase $2,442,000 or 79.8
percent to $5,502,000. The major projects are continued expansion of
the upgrades to the State Office Wide Area Network ($1,550,000) and the
Capitol Hill network and infrastructure ($2,025,000); upgrade Senate
telephone services in D.C. ($1,250,000); and several Enterprise
Operations data storage, back up and disaster recovery initiatives
($492,000).
Nondiscretionary items will increase $386,000 or 14.9 percent to
$2,975,000. The increase is due to a $470,000 increase in FMIS
operational support. This item was partially offset by an $84,000
decrease in Legislative Information System budget due to a scaling back
of planned enhancements for fiscal year 2002.
IT SUPPORT SERVICES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
IT Support Services Fiscal Fiscal -----------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries...................................................... $4,693 $5,318 $625 13.3
Expenses...................................................... 6,456 6,840 384 5.9
---------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance...................... 11,149 12,158 1,009 9.1
=============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments.................................. 20,584 25,301 4,717 22.9
Technology Capital Investment..................................... 3,700 3,027 (673) (18.2)
Nondiscretionary Items............................................ 0 0 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 35,433 40,486 5,053 14.3
=============================================
Staffing.......................................................... 99 101 2 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IT Support Services Department consists of the Desktop/LAN Support, IT/Telecom Support, IT Research and
Deployment, and Equipment Services branches.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase by $625,000 or
13.3 percent to $5,318,000. The increase is to fund positions that were
authorized but not adequately funded in the fiscal year 2001 salary
appropriation ($295,000), add two positions in fiscal year 2002
($102,000) and fund a COLA ($228,000). The two additional positions
will support expanded services in the Office Equipment Division and an
increase in the number of CMS systems to four from the current two.
Staffing increases to 101 in fiscal year 2002.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will increase $384,000 or 5.9
percent to $6,840,000. The increase is primarily due to a $334,000
contractual increase in desktop computer help desk and support costs
due to higher service standards.
Mandated Allowances and Allotments will increase by $4,717,000 or
22.9 percent to $25,301,000. The increase is to fund new Correspondence
Management Systems (CMS) for Members ($1,950,000); a digital technology
upgrade for the RPC and DPC studios ($1,800,000); and new
telecommunications services ($850,000) consisting of new phone sets for
state offices ($650,000) and three additional voice mailboxes for state
offices ($200,000).
Technology Capital Investment will decline $673,000 or 18.2 percent
to $3,027,000. The fiscal year 2002 request funds support for the new
e-mail system ($1,777,000); the Internet E-Mail filtering system, to
filter and categorize incoming e-mails to member offices and forward
them to the CMS system ($350,000); enhanced security software
($300,000); and several web-based applications and services ($350,000).
OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Office Support Services Fiscal Fiscal -----------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries...................................................... $1,628 $1,786 $158 9.7
Expenses...................................................... 129 47 (82) (63.6)
---------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance............................ 1,757 1,833 76 4.3
=============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments.................................. 21,661 24,651 2,990 13.8
Technology Capital Investment..................................... 0 0 0 0.0
Nondiscretionary Items............................................ 0 0 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 23,418 26,484 3,066 13.1
=============================================
Staffing.......................................................... 30 30 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office Support Services Department consists of the Customer Support, Help and IT Request Processing, and
State Office Liaison branches.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase $158,000 or 9.7
percent to $1,786,000. The increase is to fund positions that were
authorized but not adequately funded in the fiscal year 2001 salary
appropriation ($100,000) and a COLA ($57,000). Staffing will remain at
30 in fiscal year 2002.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will decrease by $82,000 or
63.6 percent to $47,000. This reflects the completion of the office
profile system.
Mandated Allowances and Allotments will increase $2,990,000 or 13.8
percent to $24,651,000. An increase of $1,246,000 is to fund increased
rents for state offices due to a tighter real estate market. The
remaining part of the variance consists of $1,744,000 for security
improvements in state offices. Included in the budget request is
$8,654,000 of three-year money to fund computer equipment for members,
leadership, committees, and officers.
CAPITOL DIVISION
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Capitol Division Fiscal Fiscal -----------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries...................................................... $11,922 $12,947 $1,025 8.6
Expenses...................................................... 1,492 1,451 (41) (2.7)
---------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance...................... 13,414 14,398 984 7.3
=============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments.................................. 0 0 0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment..................................... 800 12,904 12,104 1,513.0
Nondiscretionary Items............................................ 0 0 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 14,214 27,302 13,088 92.1
=============================================
Staffing.......................................................... 297 307 9 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, Program Management and Systems Architecture, Facilities,
Galleries, Recording Studio, Photo Studio and Post Office.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase $1,025,000 or 8.6
percent to $12,947,000. The increase is to fund positions that were
authorized but not adequately funded in the fiscal year 2001 salary
appropriation ($271,000), add new positions in fiscal year 2002
($213,000), and fund a COLA ($541,000).
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will decrease by $41,000 or 2.7
percent to $1,451,000. A $100,000 increase for the Recording Studio to
fund video streaming of committee hearing broadcasts was offset by a
$142,000 decline in Program Management and Systems Architecture from
the reduced use of outside consultants.
Technology Capital Investment will increase to $12,904,000 from
$800,000 in fiscal year 2001. This is to fund the Digital Technology
Migration project ($9,254,000), Studio Relocation ($2,100,000) and
Emergency Response Plan ($150,000) projects for the Recording Studio.
The studio will be required to move in connection with the construction
of the Capitol Visitor Center. The Emergency Response initiative, part
of the Continuation of Operations Plan (COOP), will provide the needed
equipment to broadcast Senate Floor coverage should the proceedings be
relocated to another venue. We are requesting that the $11,354,000 for
the Recording Studio Digital Migration and relocation projects be
designated as no-year funds. In addition, the Program Management and
Systems Architecture department has requested $800,000 for continued
support for the APT system for this Committee; $500,000, to develop and
implement an emergency preparedness plan; and $100,000, to develop,
implement and revise the Senate's information security policy and
procedures.
STAFF OFFICES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS Variance Fiscal Year
---------------------- 2002 vs. Fiscal Year
2001
Staff Offices Fiscal Fiscal -----------------------
Year 2001 Year 2002 Percent
Budget Request Amount Incr/
(Decr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries...................................................... $4,154 $4,285 $131 3.2
Expenses...................................................... 898 1,142 244 27.2
---------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance...................... 5,052 5,427 375 7.4
=============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments.................................. 0 0 0 0.0
Technology Capital Investment..................................... 150 0 (150) (100.0)
Nondiscretionary Items............................................ 0 0 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 5,202 5,427 225 4.3
=============================================
Staffing.......................................................... 68 68 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Human Resources, Financial Management and Special
Projects.
Operations and Maintenance Salaries will increase $131,000 or 3.2
percent to $4,285,000. The increase is to fund a COLA. Staffing will
remain at 68.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses will increase $244,000 or 27.2
percent to $1,142,000. The increase is due to the pre-placement and
return-to-work medical guidelines initiative in Human Resources
($195,000) and maintenance and enhancements for the budget preparation
system ($50,000) in Financial Management. The medical guidelines will
ensure that persons selected to fill physically demanding positions in
the SAA are capable of doing so and SAA employees returning from
medical leave are physically able to perform their jobs. We expect that
our workmen's compensation claims will decrease over time as a result
of the guidelines.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 CROSSWALK
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT
Expenditure Type Central Technology Support Office Capitol Staff TOTAL
Operations Development Services Support Division Offices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General O&M:
Salaries.................... 7,037 7,709 5,318 1,786 12,947 4,285 39,082
Expenses.................... 2,443 9,621 6,840 47 1,451 1,142 21,544
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General O&M......... 9,480 17,330 12,158 1,833 14,398 5,427 60,626
===============================================================================
Mandated Allowances and 0 0 25,301 24,651 0 0 49,952
Allotments.....................
Technology Capital Investment... 0 5,502 3,027 0 12,904 0 21,433
Nondiscretionary Items.......... 0 2,975 0 0 0 0 2,975
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... 9,480 25,807 40,486 26,484 27,302 5,427 134,986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CROSSWALK
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT
Expenditure Type Central Technology Support Office Capitol Staff TOTAL
Operations Development Services Support Division Offices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General O&M:
Salaries.................... 6,577 5,837 4,693 1,628 11,922 4,154 34,811
Expenses.................... 2,348 8,444 6,456 129 1,492 898 19,767
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General O&M......... 8,925 14,281 11,149 1,757 13,414 5,052 54,578
===============================================================================
Mandated Allowances and 0 0 20,584 21,661 0 0 42,245
Allotments.....................
Technology Capital Investment... 0 3,060 3,700 0 800 150 7,710
Nondiscretionary Items.......... 0 2,589 0 0 0 0 2,589
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... 8,925 19,930 35,433 23,418 14,214 5,202 107,122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ziglar. As I have in the past, I will simply make some
comments, some of which are from my notes, to expand on that
testimony, if that's okay.
Senator Bennett. That's fine. Let me take the opportunity
to welcome these two to their first experience with the
committee. And thank you for your willingness to serve.
I should also note that Carrie Apostolou has joined the
subcommittee as our chief clerk. We're a little hard on clerks.
Jay Kimmitt was here and just getting started when he had the
same experience you did, Mr. Ziglar. Somebody came along with a
better offer.
And we're going to miss Jay as we miss Christine Ciccone
who was the clerk of this committee for a good long time.
But we wish him well and appreciate the service that he
performed. We're delighted that Carrie has been willing to take
this on. We've stolen her from the VA-HUD subcommittee where
she has served long and well. But we're delighted that she's
willing to do this for us, and you will see the excellence of
her preparation today as we ask you very penetrating questions
to help dig up----
Mr. Ziglar. And Liz and Rick will be happy to answer them.
Senator Bennett. While we have made this break, I do
recognize Senator Durbin who has come in. And, Senator, if you
have an opening statement, now is the time to do it.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. I just want to say to
Jim Ziglar thank you for your service to the United States
Senate. Your new assignment, as I mentioned on the floor, is a
piece of cake. I think it's one of the most challenging
assignments in the Federal Government. As I said, you're
certainly the person for that job.
You've handled this one with true non-partisanship and
professionalism, and I thank you for your service to the
Senate.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Ziglar, you may now proceed.
Mr. Ziglar. Senator, I would like to, without trying to
parse your words, because Jay and I talked just a second before
we started, neither of us are going to necessarily better
opportunities. We are going to different opportunities and new
challenges. Serving the Senate--there's probably no better
opportunity around--and I think Jay's shaking his head in
agreement that that's the case.
As I prepare to leave here I hope that I'm leaving the
Sergeant at Arms operation in a somewhat better situation, a
little bit better than the way I found it.
Over the last couple of years we've attempted to bring a
more businesslike approach to the way we do business, and I
hope you saw that, Senator, in the fact that we got the phone
book to you this year before the hearing.
Senator Bennett. Duly noted.
Mr. Ziglar. We've managed over the last couple of years to
eliminate two layers of management that were just duplicative.
We've also been able to reduce our FTEs by 10 percent. This was
done, even though I can tell you that we have been providing a
greater number of services, and we think and we hope that the
level of the service we have provided has been better. After
all, what Sergeant at Arms is all about is service.
I'm sorry, I really--I'm not going to use the chart so why
don't you just go ahead and set it out.
I believe that the reasons that we are more productive are
because of several things. One, we have implemented an
accountability and merit pay system in our work force that has
provided incentives to people to do their job better.
We, as part of that, for example, changed the leave accrual
system in a way that would encourage people to not be absent as
much. And, in fact, it has resulted, for example, in the
Central Operations area which was the place that we had the
biggest problem with absenteeism.
Absenteeism has dropped 40 percent as a result of some of
the changes we have put in place. We have gotten a much more
productive, motivated and incentivized, if you will, work force
as a result of some of those personnel changes that we've made.
We've taken steps to provide our employees with more
training and career development. The one thing that I know that
you know, Senator, having been in the private sector, is that
if employees see that they have an opportunity to better their
skills which put them in a better position for promotions and
raises and things like that, morale goes up.
What we have attempted to do is expand our training and
expand our career development steps in the Sergeant at Arms
operation.
I have an uncle that you know, Zig Ziglar, who is kind of
an icon in the training industry. I've followed his philosophy,
and I've tried to instill that philosophy into the Senate. That
is, the only thing worse than training somebody and losing them
is not training somebody and keeping them. And unfortunately we
lose people, and we have lost some good people, but we're
training our people, and we're creating a benchmark that I
think will serve the Senate very well in years to come.
Then also we have tried to employ technology the best way
we can to help our employees do their job better.
Now, let me note here that notwithstanding all the things I
just said about our reducing our FTEs by about 10 percent since
I got here, we are asking for an increase in authorization in
the year 2002. I know that seems a bit inconsistent with what I
just said. The reasons are fairly simple as to why we're asking
for it.
Some of the technologies that we're putting in place to
help members, committees, others do their job more efficiently
are less and less labor intensive, things such as the new e-
mail system, the echo-mail system, the Recording Studio in
terms of the way we will broadcast committee hearings, things
like that are going to make it easier for the members and the
committees to do their work. But those things also require us,
at our end, to provide a bit more monitoring, a bit more
customer assistance, if you will, and maintenance.
We also are undertaking an initiative to upgrade our
approach, understanding and response to some of the challenges
in the security area in technology. Cyber terrorism, as you
know, is increasing rather dramatically, and we have to protect
the Senate from that. We are working very hard at putting in
place as many security modalities as we possibly can. That
requires people with different skill sets than we've
necessarily always had.
We're also attempting to become less dependent on vendors.
We spend a lot of money in the Senate on contracts with various
vendors. Some of it is important, some of it is efficient, some
of it is not, Senator. And we'll examine that and try to figure
out where we can save money, do a better job, and provide more
consistent service by doing it in house.
A great example of this is the legislative information
system which we have brought in house in terms of the
maintenance and continuing operations. We save approximately $2
million annually by doing it in house instead of doing it
contracted out.
As we hopefully decrease the burden on committees and
members and their staffs, that has somewhat increased the
burden on the Sergeant at Arms in terms of maintaining and
operating our systems. In the end, I believe and I hope this is
true, that we all benefit and ultimately the taxpayer benefits
from our putting in place these efficiencies.
I would like to note some of the other initiatives we've
undertaken, some of which are still ongoing, some of which have
been completed, and all of which we're happy with and proud of.
When I first got here, I used to ask, okay, what do we do
in this situation and that situation, and somebody would say
the policy is this or precedent is that or the procedure is the
following. And I'd say, okay, where do you get that? They would
respond: ``Well, I've been here 30 years, and that's the way
we've always done it.'' Or this is the precedent, we did this 3
years ago. I'd say, well, where is this written down?
A lot of times we'd find things written in one section or
another division, but there was never a place to go to figure
out what our policies and procedures were, in fact, whether
they were consistent with the rules of the Senate as they're
printed in the Senate manual.
I undertook about 2 years ago to get everybody together
over time and compile these policies, procedures, and
precedents. And I'm happy to report that I have a notebook in
my office now that I think is pretty close to complete in
documenting these things that we have done in the past. So that
when we get an issue about what can you do on the plaza, I
don't have to kind of just make it up out of whole cloth or
say, gee, we let the Democrats do it this week, so we let the
Republicans do it next week.
We're trying to make it where we have policies that are
fair and consistent and reflect the values and the rules of the
Senate. So I've been very pleased with that process. It took
some time and encountered a little resistance, but we've gotten
there.
When I first got here, I also found out that
notwithstanding what you would do in the executive branch and
in the private sector, we really didn't have any disaster
recovery plans, and we didn't have any continuation of
operation plans around here. For example, what if the Senate
chamber was destroyed by fire? Or, God forbid, there was some
kind of biochem attack in the Capitol and the Senate could not
function in that setting. Do we have a plan to have the Senate
continue to be functional?
Well, the truth is we didn't, Senator. We do now. It is the
design phase of that plan that is just about complete. Well, it
is complete in draft form. Putting it into executable form is
going to take another 6 months with all the details. And we
actually have money in our budget that reflects some of the
expenditures that are going to be necessary to set the stage
for our being able to have disaster recovery and continuation
of operations in the event we have an unfortunate event in the
Capitol or even in the Senate office buildings.
That is something that I have considered really as one of
my highest priorities. It hadn't had much attention before, but
it is important.
Another thing that I found when I got here and, again,
Senator, having been in the private sector, you know that on a
monthly basis you like to get a revenue and expense report. You
want to see, well, I budgeted this much, but what have my
actual expenditures been against the budget, and how am I
doing? And what is the projection for the rest of the year?
We didn't have any such thing when I got here. We do now.
As a management tool, that has been extremely effective in
terms of did we incorrectly budget in terms of what our real
needs were, or are we just not managing our flow of cash in
projects as we should be? It has been a tremendous tool, and
I'm certain, knowing Liz and Rick and how they use it that they
will continue it long after I'm gone.
Something else that I find a lot of pride in--I can't take
much credit for it, I can't take any credit for it--but that's
the reduction of mailing expenses for the Senate. We achieved
these reduction by bringing in some equipment to do better
sorting of the mail--and by the way we received this equipment,
valued at about $300,000, from the Navy, that didn't cost us
anything because they were surplussing it. Plus we have worked
with the offices to help them better manage their mailing
lists. We now save about $2 million a year.
We've reduced our mailing expenses in the aggregate in the
Senate. This is a very significant change, and my friend Harry
Green, Senate Postmaster, and Rick Edwards are responsible for
those initiatives.
We're in the process of developing a life cycle asset
replacement program. As you look back over the budgets of the
Senate, it has been up and down with respect to capital asset
replacement and expenditures.
What we would like to do is have a more rational way of
looking at the equipment that needs to be replaced so we have a
more consistent budget in terms of our capital investments plus
the fact that we will hopefully stay more current with the
state-of-the-art in the technology area.
Another thing that we have done is adopted and now use
modern project management methods. Now when we undertake a
project, we have GANT charts and project goals. We have all the
steps along the way, and we manage against those goals. And
that, as you know, is a much better way of doing projects.
And then finally we've simplified our acquisition process
to make it faster, cheaper, and more efficient. Frankly, what
we found out was that for every acquisition we were making it
cost us about $100 in terms of the paperwork and time to
generate a purchase order. Quite often the purchases were less
than $100 so we were spending $100 to buy something for $50
through our purchasing process.
We've changed that dramatically now, and we think that
we're saving at least in hard dollars $50,000 a year, and in
soft dollars in terms of personnel time and things like that,
who knows. Rather remarkable number, I suspect.
The big three technology initiatives that have been ongoing
for a while now are doing well. First is upgrading the
Recording Studio from analog to digital which, of course, is
being required by FCC rules. It's also important that we be in
a position of broadcasting digitally and also providing digital
coverage--digital camera coverage of our committee rooms and
that kind of thing.
What we're doing is making it possible for the American
people to see the Congress in action in a more easily
accessible way by doing some of the things that we're doing.
That project is going very well. Liz will talk about some of
the details of that in a few minutes.
A project that is virtually finished involved the major
upgrades of the photocopy, printing, and graphics area. This is
where your offices will see the results most prominently and
that is our ability to print directly from your computers, our
ability to reproduce the documents that you folks have produced
on a much quicker basis and at a much higher quality. It had
been a very large project, and we've gotten it done. Almost all
of that equipment is installed or soon will be installed.
And then finally the granddaddy of them all, the messaging
infrastructure project. Now, that one has been a bit of a
challenge. This is sort of like having 10 lawyers in a room.
You've got the 10 lawyers in the room and you have 15 different
opinions. We have 100 Senators, all of whose offices have a
slightly different view of how we ought to do the e-mail system
and messaging infrastructure system. And we did have to
struggle to come to some consensus.
We did come to a consensus on a design. That design is just
about finished. We're at the proof of concept phase of it. I am
very pleased because I think we have managed to satisfy the
legitimate concerns of the offices that were really involved in
this.
And I think that once the proof of concept phase is over,
it's going to prove that this is a good design, and we'll start
deploying it in the very near future. It will take a while to
deploy the new system, but we will have a redundancy or run a
parallel system with the old system. So there will be hopefully
a seamless migration from the system we're on to the new
system, which will be a very large--to use a current word,
robust system in terms of the e-mail.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask Liz in just a moment to talk
a little bit about some of the details of some of the projects
that I know you're interested in, but I wanted to once again
thank all of the employees of the Sergeant at Arms for their
loyal dedicated service. I also want to thank you, sir, and the
Senate.
Senator Bennett. We're glad to see that the tough Mr.
Ziglar has an emotional side just like all the rest of us.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bennett. Liz.
STATEMENT OF LIZ MC ALHANY
Ms. McAlhany. Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to speak about our fiscal year 2002
budget request.
As Jim mentioned, my history in the Senate includes, among
other positions, several years in my role at directing the
computer center for the Senate. I've been fortunate in that
capacity and other positions here to see the many firsts that
we've introduced in the Senate, from the first PCs to the first
e-mail system in the Senate, to the introduction of Internet e-
mail, plus our web site.
And I'm proud to report that the Senate web site won a
Presidential design award for our graphic presentation in 2000.
And as the Presidential award cited, the new Senate web site
humanizes the institution of the Senate by making its everyday
activities and rich history readily accessible to the public.
We were 1 of 10 such organizations around the country to win a
graphic design award. We worked closely with the Secretary of
the Senate on this. But this is quite a prestigious award, and
we're proud of the organization.
Quite honestly, I'm proud and honored to be part of such a
tremendous organization with strong leaders and our history of
high quality products.
As Jim mentioned, we are in the process of implementing
several major technology initiatives in our 2002 budget. The
first is our electronic mail system. For 13 years we have used
cc:Mail, and that has served the Senate well. But it's time to
move on to new products. We are now planning this major
migration, as Jim discussed, to the Microsoft products of
Exchange and Outlook.
I do want to stress we consider this to be one of the most
major upgrades we will be introducing into the Senate. We will
affect every Senator, every committee, every staff member in
D.C. and in the State offices. It's a major initiative. We
believe we have strong management focused in on this project, a
dedicated project team.
We have some costs we can discuss at the end of this
project and the time frame. But with the ever increasing volume
that the Senate is managing with mail now, we know we have to
have more efficient services to help you answer your
constituent mail and your Internet mail.
Just in the last 2 years we've seen the Internet mail
explode. We are getting six times more mail than we received 2
years ago on the Internet. We are seeing an average of 6
million messages a month that we are processing for the Senate
in bound and outbound. And we have increased our ability to
manage this mail.
In January we could manage roughly 20,000 messages an hour.
Today we can manage 50,000. With some upgrades we planned in
June, we will be able to manage 75,000, which is approximately
a million and a half a day. So we're trying to keep pace with
the mail now.
I might say that part of the delays, I know there have been
some concerns about our delays, in delivering mail with the
older technology we have in place. With cc:Mail there is some
technology conversion that needs to occur before we can deliver
this mail to the offices. We are confident that our testing
should show this this summer, that with the introduction of
change and some of the products related to that, we should
always be able to stay current with mail.
We also do daily monitoring of our Internet services to
make sure we are providing the best technology solution we can.
We have daily reports that we receive, and according to our
reports, we have not had a delay in delivering mail to the
Senate since February 9th of this year. Of course we did have
some difficulties in January.
We recognize the importance of being able to manage your
electronic mail. We recognize that. Therefore we are currently
offering a filtering system called echo-mail to senators. It
has been demonstrated in over 40 offices, and we have a large
number of offices that are cueing up now, and we are installing
it now.
We have found in just a couple of offices and in one week,
as an example, one Senate office received 25,000 electronic
mail messages, 65 percent of those were spam mail messages,
most of them coming from the site vote.com. We are finding that
this filtering tool will help the offices manage this kind of
influx of electronic mail messages.
We will also continue monitoring the marketplace and
industry to make sure we have the best tools here that can help
you manage this mail. That is our commitment to you.
Another major initiative, as Jim mentioned, is upgrading
the Senate Recording Studio to the digital technology. As
reminded, this is a 5-year project, and it will cost the Senate
$25 million in total before this project is complete.
We are currently completing phase one of the project. We
are upgrading the Senate TV facility. We should be ready with
the TV signal by August. So when we return after the August
recess, the Senate broadcast will be displayed, at least our
feed will be in a high definition digital format. We also will
be able to introduce the browser this fall.
With that capability, the staff will be able to have real
time access to information on the floor, committee hearings,
possibly network news. We need to work with the Rules Committee
to see what services we will put out on the browser system for
the Senate offices.
Phase two of this big project begins fiscal year 2002, and
that is to upgrade of the TV studios that are part of the
Senate Recording Studio.
It also is to begin planning for our central control
facility phase one of that. The central control facility, I
believe Jim mentioned this, allows us to better manage the
committee hearings and provide a service where we can manage
that more centrally, thus saving some resources of the Sergeant
at Arms and have more committee hearings that we can cover at
any one point.
Phase three of this massive initiative begins in fiscal
year 2003, and that's to convert the radio studios to digital
format and continue working on the central control facility.
Phase four and five is what I call implementation years. We
will complete the central control facility, we'll equip the
studio, control rooms, and then we'll complete all of this and
do some internal upgrades in phase five.
The question one would ask is why are we doing this? As Jim
mentioned, we are doing it because the broadcasters must
provide the digital feed by 2006, and we, as the content
provider, want to continue providing high quality feed to the
broadcasters.
We also wanted to continue providing good services through
the Recording Studio and enhance what we're currently
providing. We would like to provide the floor proceedings in
real time, the committee hearings, network news. A benefit of
this, the outcome of all of this will be that the feed from the
Senate will be a service to the photographers who are not
allowed in the Senate chamber now to take photographs. Our feed
will provide photo quality format for the photographers.
We have requested in our 2002 budget $9 million for the
next phase of this as a multi-year funding. And what are our
major efforts in our fiscal year 2002 budget? We do have
significant challenges in our projects that will require time
and resources. This is really a year of implementation for us.
As Jim mentioned, our highest priority is getting the new
e-mail system in. We believe we're right on track for that, but
this has been a challenging project. We would also like to
complete a filtering system for offices, should they be
interested in taking advantage of that. We'll complete the
major upgrade to our copying and printing services. We'll
complete the Recording Studio.
And one thing that Jim did not mention but is something
that we're always attentive to is making sure we provide good
communications between Washington and the State offices. We
went through an initiative last year to install 100 T1 circuits
or broaden the communications bandwidth between Washington and
the State offices. We have found that has been very successful.
We have increased the productivity in the State offices.
Working with our local phone providers, we are now in a process
of costing out what it would take to provide an additional T1
circuit to a number of these offices or increase the bandwidth.
We're hopeful with the second phase of this program next year
we will be able to and affect positively communications for 80
percent of the people in the State offices.
These major upgrades will require additional resources, as
Jim has noted, therefore I request a number of these resources
to maintain the network operation side.
As Jim mentioned, our budget process over 5 years calls for
a constant plan to review and migrate to current testing and
proven technology as seamlessly as we possibly can so we do not
interrupt services to the Senate offices.
While we see the productivity and efficiency gains for the
Senate offices, it will require additional resources and a
commitment to training our existing work force.
We have presented our fiscal year 2002 budget request in
four major categories as we did in 2001. These categories are
general operations, mandated allowances and allotments for the
members and committees, technology capital investments, and
non-discretionary items. We believe our budget does reflect the
needs of the Senate offices.
The members of the Senate continue to make it very clear to
us that they require a modern technology infrastructure to
support their operation. We hope our budget reflects that.
We're very well aware of our responsibilities to provide a
secure, strong network and infrastructure and are committed to
doing so with what we believe is the best option. And that is
hiring additional staff to maintain our network and our
infrastructure to ensure the highest level of security.
We currently have intrusion detection systems and services
that we use on a regular basis to make sure that our
infrastructure is secure. And we currently offer current
versions of antivirus software to make sure that the systems in
your offices are secure.
As Jim mentioned, we are trying to rely more on our own
resources than outsourcing contractors. We do have one area
this year, another area where we had to depend on contractors
for our network engineering area, costing the Senate almost
$900,000 for 9 months. We believe we can hire staff, train them
on our security options, and have them work with us internally.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Ms. McAlhany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. We appreciate it.
We've been joined by Senator Stevens, and we're always glad
to welcome. Senator, do you have any comments?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
here basically to thank this group. I think you've responded
very well to the demands that we've placed on you. I don't
think any committee makes more demands on your services.
Thirteen subcommittees, 14 bills per year, we're doing a lot,
particularly a lot of travel and a lot of oversight. We need
your help to keep going, and I'm grateful to you for having
provided the help we've asked.
I have no comments or criticisms at all about what is going
on. I think you're right to have an increased budget for
development and assessment of new technology to see what else
we might adapt to our process.
Mr. Chairman, I brought the first automatic typewriter to
the Senate and the first laptop, and it's right after I got off
the Mayflower with Strom.
We've come a long way, and I'm really proud that you're
helping us today move ahead. I do believe we're going to all
want wireless cells that are capable of not only paging but e-
mail receipt and telephone service that won't cut out every
time we're 20 feet--we appreciate all you're doing and all I
can say is keep up. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way, as long as
you don't use all those instruments on the floor of the Senate,
it's okay.
Senator Stevens. I'm the author of a proposal with Senator
Byrd that they can't come on.
Senator Bennett. You've covered most of the items that I've
wanted to question you about but let me ask you the overall
budget question. We've asked for extra money for the Recording
Studio. We've asked for extra money for some of these
migrations from old technology to new. And all of that is fine.
OUT-YEAR BUDGETS
What can we expect in future years? That is, is this a
spike that comes as you make the investment now, and then we
will begin to see the kinds of productivity increases and
savings that Jim Ziglar spoke about so that the future year
budget will come down, or is this a new base line that we say,
okay, we swallow the challenge of this year, this,
percentagewise, is a very large increase, much bigger than the
4 percent, 5 percent that we're talking about for the overall
budget. I see you have a chart for that. Let's look into that.
Mr. Ziglar. Well, actually, I didn't know you were going to
ask the question, but as you may recall, it was last year or
the year before last--I guess it was last year I talked to you
about this evergreen budgeting process that I've tried to put
into place in the Sergeant at Arms operation, and we have, in
fact, done that, where we are every year looking another 5
years out. And we just keep updating it every year to figure
out what it's going to cost.
Senator Bennett. The rolling 5-year plan.
Mr. Ziglar. Yes, sir. The biggest part of that is what are
our investments going to be in hard assets, technology, things
like that. This reflects what we believe, and you know how
evergreen budgets are, it's a shot in the dark quite often.
This is what we believe will be the cost factor for technology
investments going forward.
As you can see, we've had this spike in the last couple of
years, and we are getting to the point now where an awful lot
of these big investments will be done, particularly in the
Recording Studio, for example, and that we will now be able to
level this out, adding in there the fact that we are trying to
develop and are developing an asset replacement, life cycle
asset replacement program so we can, on a very rational basis,
come back to you year by year and ask for those upgrades. So we
don't have these big spikes where we let everything get
obsolete, then we have to rush to catch up.
By the time we catch up, we spend a ton of money, and the
technology has gotten away from us again. So we're trying to
plan better by using this evergreen budget process, and these
are our best guesses of what the budget request will be, going
out 5 years.
Senator Bennett. So if that holds, the investment in the
green chart is not quite close enough that my bifocals can--it
says technology capital improvements in the green, but I don't
see what it says in the red. Oh, investment, okay.
Mr. Ziglar. Those are the non-discretionary items that are
in the budget that we're told to spend.
Senator Bennett. So indeed if this holds, this means we go
up with the request for 2002, we get some overall relief as the
technology kicks in and makes us more productive, but the
inevitable inexorable increase in operations, maintenance, and
mandated allowances will eat up those increases in
productivity. But the top line remains the same.
Mr. Ziglar. Yes, sir. One of the things that you have to
remember is that we have a lot of employees, and we have COLAs
and things like that. So it's going to always go up some.
What we think we can manage to do is get control of the
growth of the labor force size in the Sergeant at Arms using
technology and better efficiencies. So most of that increase,
you will find, is actually an increase in labor costs on the
same base.
Senator Bennett. I accept the idea that it is a projection
rather than a locked-in firm certainty. Anytime you talk 5
years, you're dealing with projections. This makes it easier to
sell the 26 percent increase that you're asking for this year.
And, of course, it's also easier when the chairman of the
full committee who makes our subcommittee allocations is
sitting here saying he thinks it's a good idea. Also makes it
an easier sell.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I do think that this is as honest
an appraisal of what we think is going to happen, barring some
unforeseen circumstances we can't see today, going forward in
terms of what we're going to ask for.
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
Senator Bennett. As I say, you've covered most of the items
I've wanted to question you about, but let's talk about the 16
additional FTEs and spend just a moment justifying that
increase in staffing. This is just in the technology
development services.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, Liz knows the details a little
bit better.
Ms. McAlhany. Mr. Chairman, if I could, 5 of those 16 are
needed to maintain our network security. They're in our
engineering area, and we want to make sure we have our own
resources monitoring our network and making sure we have the
most secure network possible.
This is the one we're using contractors assistance with
this year. The remaining 11 of those are to basically fully
fund the--we have a number of people on board in that
department, and we have not had the opportunity to fully fund
those positions. So of those 16 to fund we're actually talking
about adding five more to our work force.
Now, we have a number of technology projects that we
discuss that require a number of people in this department to
monitor the enterprise level. Once we start implementing
Exchange, we'll need people to monitor that 24 hours a day, 7
days a week because we'll expect to provide that service to
you. We'll always be monitoring our mainframe activities as we
still have them there.
Our growing number of servers that we have in the computer
room that we use to deploy more services needs some attention.
We see taking the five additional, plus the 11 that we have
loaned to this department, we're trying to get our numbers
correct here, would be the total count of the 16 for technology
development.
NEW E-MAIL SYSTEM
Mr. Ziglar. May I add something, Mr. Chairman? The e-mail,
the messaging infrastructure system is going to require some
additional folks for a very good reason. The ultimate design
that we came up with provides that each member's data is
actually going to be in his or her office. We also will have a
directory that will be specific to each one of the members.
This is a fairly sophisticated system. There are simpler
systems, but the simpler systems do not provide the security
and privacy and other things that we think and the Senate
thinks are important, and I agree with them.
The truth is a lot of the members have very sophisticated
systems managers in their office who can take care of problems
that come on the system. Unfortunately, we have a number of
members who don't. And, as a result of that, we are finding
ourselves increasingly providing assistance to those systems
managers in the offices where they're not as sophisticated
about this.
That problem is going to grow with the implementation of
the new messaging infrastructure system because it is complex.
And until at the member level we have more technical expertise,
the Sergeant at Arms is going to be coming in behind
backfilling on problems. And that problem will grow, and this
is what we're trying to do now is to get that work force at a
level that we can deal with that.
Senator Bennett. Okay, fine.
Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1966 I came to
the Senate as an intern working in the office of Senator Paul
Douglas, in what was then known as the old Senate office
building. I used to go down to the basement there and sit in a
room and hammer away on a little typewriter on something called
dress up plates, tiny little metal slugs that you had to wear
earphones to cover, tapping away at this typewriter as you put
the names and addresses on.
Then I would go to an adjoining room, and we had some Rube
Goldberg operation with a long paper tape with perforations in
it where we would try to get these robo-type machines to work
all night to print out letters. That was my first exposure to
Senate technology. Things have changed a lot, and they've
changed dramatically for the better. And I thank you for all
that you've done.
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
Having said that, let me raise at least an observation and
ask you a question. I served for 14 years in the House before
coming here, and I have a unique living arrangement where I
live with two members of the House. Senator Schumer and I live
with two Congressmen. So, among other things, we discuss what
is going on in technology between the House and the Senate.
It has been my impression over the last 4 years that the
House has been much more open-minded. Much more open to new
technology than the Senate. They have tried a lot of things
that we have never tried and have put on their approve list a
lot of opportunities for members that the Senate has never had.
I'm sure some of that was wasted. I bet you they tried
things that didn't work out very well. My impression is we've
taken over time a very conservative approach to new technology
in the Senate as opposed to the House approach. I'd like your
thoughts on that.
I would also like to ask you to comment on the question of
whether or not ultimately our systems, and I hope this is the
right word--I am a liberal arts lawyer so forgive me--will be
able to interface so there may come a day where the House and
Senate have the same systems that may be able to talk to one
another. I know that may be a radical notion.
Senator Bennett. Radical.
Senator Durbin. Radical notion, unconstitutional, subject
to Supreme Court challenge. I would think that that is not an
outrageous idea that we would basically get to the same
systems. And we don't have them today. I think we're moving
there with Microsoft and the like.
INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
The third thing I would like to say in this area--and
completely exhaust all of my knowledge and observations when it
comes to technology--is I don't understand the green part of
that graph because it suggests a substantial ramping up in
technology capital investment from fiscal year 2001 to it
appears to be 2002 or 2003. And then a decline in cost for
capital investment. Then a flat line for 3 or 4 years.
In this world we live in, I can't imagine how we could say
that with any amount of credibility where the technology is
changing so rapidly, and the need to update it and to modernize
it has reached the point where the venerable Senator Stevens
starts using words up here about his handheld Palm cell,
wireless e-mail, so forth and so on.
I think this is something that never would have been
mentioned a few months ago, and now it's part of the lexicon of
most Members of the Senate. I just can't see how you can
suggest a flat line in capital investment. In fact, a pretty
substantial decline in investment on technology. I think just
looking at this honestly, that number is going to continue to
go up if we're going to continue to modernize. I'd like to have
your observations.
Mr. Ziglar. Senator, let me tell you what is not in that
green part. That does not include the amounts of money that we
will be spending on senators' offices upgrades. That's part of
the computer services fund and other places. That green part of
the budget has to do with Sergeant at Arms operations
technology upgrades.
For example, the big item in there, there are two big
kahunas in there. One is the upgrade of the Senate Recording
Studio to digital. And that is a big number; that's a big part
of that. Once we get to that, that will be a fairly flat
investment scenario after that for a good long time.
The other one is the e-mail, the messaging infrastructure
system which will be--hopefully it's a little bit more modular
than what we have now so that we can make tweaks to it without
having to replace the whole system going forward.
So we're going to spend a lot of money on Sergeant at Arms
technologies that deliver services to you folks.
What happens with respect to your computers in your
operations and things like that, those are different parts of
the budget. Those are in the mandated allowances and things
like that. So there is still clearly growth in the expenditures
for those sorts of things. This is simply the Sergeant at Arms
macro investments, if you will. A good question.
The other thing is as I mentioned earlier, we have a life
cycle asset replacement program going in. So that we can manage
our investments and keep them flat as opposed to having these
cataclysmic events where we have to spend millions of dollars
to catch up. We're trying to run it more like a business would
run its business.
Senator Durbin. How about the question of interfacing with
the House of Representatives?
INTERFACING WITH HOUSE
Mr. Ziglar. We have actually had several discussions in the
last couple of years with the House about becoming more
compatible with them on a number of areas. There's enormous
amount of resistance to that, Senator.
It's interesting. You cross that middle point in the
rotunda, and there's just not all that much interest in having
that much interface, although I think it will come over time.
And we certainly have been talking to them about a unified
paging system, because we have a very robust system here, and
they've been talking to us about that.
Now, I don't know that that's going to happen. But we are
in discussions with the House. At least there are
communications now where there never was any.
The question about whether or not they're more aggressive
in terms of technology, I think there probably was a time that
they were. I would grant you that. They have a very different
e-mail kind of system over there. It's sort of every man for
himself, if you will.
However, they are paying very close attention to what we're
doing over here because they've got to migrate to a new system,
and they're interested in what we're doing. And I have a
feeling we may see them copying what we're doing. I think we
have taken the lead away from the House in that respect, at
least my competitive instincts have been such that I've wanted
to.
Senator Durbin. But when will this transition to Microsoft
be final or is it likely to happen soon?
Mr. Ziglar. Proof of concept process should be over in July
or August, I believe. And at that point we would deploy. The
deployment could be anywhere from a year to a year and a half.
But as I mention, we will have parallel systems running at all
times so there will be a seamless transition to it.
By the way, Senator, Senator Bennett and I actually talked
about this a long time ago. He and I both were up here in the
1960s too. I came here in 1964 to work for Senator Jim
Eastland, and I remember your boss, Paul Douglas, quite well.
And I spent many an hour in that dungeon down there in the
basement too, so I know what you're talking about.
Senator Durbin. Builds character.
Mr. Ziglar. Yes.
SYSTEMS MANAGERS
Senator Bennett. One last question, you mentioned the
systems managers in each Senator's office. We have a systems
manager in our office without whom we could not function.
Whenever I do something stupid, I just call him and he comes in
and waves his magic wand and says a few interesting words, and
the computer suddenly works again.
Mr. Ziglar. Explains it to him.
Senator Bennett. Are we going to need systems managers in
our State office, or can we continue to contract this function
out, do you think, long term?
Ms. McAlhany. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of
them now. The larger Senate offices do have administrators
there. The kind of technology we're trying to put in place
would allow your D.C. administrator to manage the State offices
from D.C. It's always helpful to have more technology experts
in the State, and once we migrate to Outlook and Exchange, that
would be important. But it is more important to keep that
resource here and have us give them tools to monitor their
State networks from Washington.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We've gone longer
than is usual, but it has been very informative. And we always
like to talk about the future. So, again, Mr. Ziglar, we wish
you the very best. We congratulate you on your service and
thank you for your determination to make life better not only
for Members of the Senate but for the staff of the Sergeant at
Arms for whom you have responsibility.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it has been a real
pleasure.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JAMES J. VAREY, CHIEF OF POLICE, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
BILL LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
ROBERT HOWE, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
JOHN McWILLIAM, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, U.S. CAPITOL
POLICE
Senator Bennett. Our next witnesses are the Capitol Police
Board and the chairman of the board is Mr. James Ziglar. We'll
have him joined by Chief James Varey and the other members of
the board.
Mr. Livingood from the House, you've heard all of these
comments about the House now. We won't give you time to defend
yourself here, but we'll look forward to that.
And Alan Hantman is, of course, the Architect of the
Capitol. Chief, would you introduce the fellow officers that
you've brought with you.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir, thank you. I'd like to introduce
Assistant Chief Robert Howe in charge of our uniform
operations, and I would like to introduce our new colleague Mr.
John McWilliam, who is the chief administrative officer for the
United States Capitol Police.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, gentlemen. Your budget request
totals $127.3 million, including a $5 million budget amendment
submitted on the 10th of May for comparability pay with the
Park Police and Secret Service Uniform Division.
So the total request represents $23.5 million or 22.7
percent increase over the current budget. And this would
include 49 additional employees.
So we look forward to your testimony, Mr. Ziglar. Again,
welcome.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it's a pleasure
to be here and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to present
the Capitol Police budget request for 2002. And I'll do my
absolute best to keep my emotions under control. I wouldn't
want these cops to think I'm some kind of a wimp.
Chief Varey and Chief Howe, John McWilliam have just been
introduced. I might add Chief Varey came on board since our
last hearing here, and we have been very pleased with the
Chief. He's taken some important initiatives at the police
department, and we'll talk about a couple of those in a minute.
He had great experience coming in, having been in the
Secret Service, then as the Deputy Sergeant at Arms in the
House. He also was very much involved in the strategic planning
process that we did a couple of years ago that fashions what we
do in the future. So we're very pleased with Jim, and he's done
a great job.
Bobby Howe has been here more years than Carter has little
liver pills. He remembers all the things we did in the 1960s up
here, and Bobby knows an awful lot about the police and is an
invaluable source of information on the history about the
police.
John McWilliam is the product of a nationwide search that
we did for a Chief Administrative Officer. I tell you we got a
good one. He is doing a terrific job in cleaning up some of the
problems we've had over there. We had three different panels--a
full review of all our applicants in this search--and John
ended up being number one on everybody's list, and there's a
reason for that.
I also have with me my two brothers in crime here, Mr.
Livingood the House Sergeant at Arms.
Senator Bennett. You might choose another phrase.
Mr. Ziglar. I realized I said that. And Alan Hantman. I not
only have two very good colleagues--we've been working together
very well--I've made a couple of very good friends, and I'm
going to miss these guys.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, we have written testimony that I'd like to
submit for the record, if that's appropriate.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. Ziglar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to present the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request for the
United States Capitol Police.
I would like to formally introduce Chief James J. Varey. As you
know, Chief Varey was sworn in as Chief of Police in May of last year
after being selected by the members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board.
Chief Varey has begun his tenure at a challenging time for the
Department, but his prior working knowledge of the U.S. Capitol Police,
through his experience as the former Deputy House Sergeant at Arms, as
well as his prior career with the U.S. Secret Service, have allowed him
to immediately address a number of critical administrative and
operational issues. We have every confidence that he will continue to
provide the leadership and guidance the Department needs.
The budget submission for the U.S. Capitol Police for fiscal year
2002 is $127,329,000, which is an increase of 22.7 percent. Of the
total request, $116,935,000 is for salaries and $10,394,000 is for
general expenses. Included in the salary component is a pay adjustment
to achieve comparability with other federal law enforcement agencies in
the Washington, DC area.
The United States Capitol Police is mission driven and goal
oriented. The mission and goals of the Department are organized in a
strategic plan which guides our operations and directs our efforts to
secure the Capitol Complex and protect the members of Congress, staff,
and visitors. Using the Strategic Plan as a guide, we developed our
fiscal year 2002 budget to ensure the success of this charge. The
requested funding will support and advance three major goals of the
strategic plan: prevention of crime, response to incidents, and a
support structure for our operations.
Mr. Chairman, we have identified four areas within the budget which
are of special interest to the Department in meeting our mission and
achieving our organizational goals. They are training, staffing,
administrative infrastructure, and telecommunications and support
services.
The capability and efficiency of an organization is dependent upon
the level of training, knowledge, and skills of its personnel. Because
of the complexity and diversity of its mission, the U.S. Capitol Police
must provide high-quality training to its personnel with respect to a
myriad of operational, administrative, and management functions. When
training is continually deferred, as it has been due to budget
constraints, mission focus and unity of purpose declines, personnel
performance wanes, and complacency becomes systemic. We simply cannot
allow this to continue. Therefore, we have made training a priority
budget item and have requested increased funding to expand both
specialized and basic in-service training for sworn and civilian
personnel.
The annual budget for the U.S. Capitol Police is primarily driven
by the staffing level required to provide the Congress, the public, and
the buildings an adequate level of security in such an open environment
and also provide for support functions. Since the shootings in 1998 and
the subsequent report by the multi-agency task force which reviewed
security and USCP staffing levels, the USCP has sought to incrementally
increase its FTE level each year until such time as the optimum
recommended FTE level of 1,694 is achieved. Therefore, in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request, we are seeking an incremental FTE increase of
49 in order to continue the security enhancement effort. The fiscal
year 2002 FTE goal of 1,530 is based on the ability of the Department
to recruit and train forty-eight officers within a one year period in
addition to the one hundred officers who are required to replace
departing personnel. One additional FTE is required for the Chief
Administrative Officer position.
As you are aware, the USCP has begun an initiative to strengthen
the administrative operations of the Department, particularly in the
areas of human resource management, information technology, and
financial management. In preparing our budget request to support this
effort, we used the recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen &
Hamilton Management Review as a guide. These recommendations were
ultimately incorporated into the Strategic Plan. As a result of the
funding provided in the fiscal year 2001 budget, we have made progress
in administrative operations such as hiring professional staff,
contracting with the Office of Personnel Management to conduct an
organizational and workload analysis of the Human Resources Department,
purchasing new server hardware, acquiring and installing an automated
fingerprinting identification system, and converting to a new
accounting system for general expenses and security appropriations
which is provided through a cross-servicing agreement with the General
Accounting Office. We are also moving to implement new policies and
procedures and to adopt a best practices model for administrative
operations.
The funding requested in fiscal year 2002 will allow us to build
upon the progress we have made thus far and ensure the administrative
functions continue to provide adequate service and support in the
future. Primarily, funding will provide for the continued improvement
of the accounting function to include annual financial audits, life
cycle replacement of personal computers and servers, and
professionalization of the administrative functions.
With regard to telecommunications and related support, the USCP
currently receives funding and technical support from the Senate
Sergeant at Arms. This includes telephone equipment and service, data
networks and circuits, radio maintenance, computer help desk and
service, and publishing and printing services. The funding requested
will reimburse the Senate Sergeant at Arms for the support provided to
the USCP that is not otherwise included in the Senate budget request.
Mr. Chairman, are you can see, we have made progress on addressing
past deficiencies and setting a course for the future of the United
States Capitol Police through the implementation of the Strategic Plan.
The funding requested in fiscal year 2002 will ensure the Department
can continue to meet its mission while holding to the principle of
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, sir.
In my earlier testimony about the Sergeant at Arms budget,
I talked about and we talked about my impending departure and
my initiatives over the last 2 years. I can tell you that I'm
equally proud of what's been accomplished at the police
department in the last 2\1/2\ years. And the changes, although
they might not be as apparent to people around the Hill, at the
police department they have been probably even more significant
than those that we've tried to make at the Sergeant at Arms
operation.
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Two years ago the Capitol Police faced major administrative
and management challenges. We had very serious deficiencies in
our financial operations, in our human resources department,
and in our information technology utilization.
Just to give you an example, 2 years ago we had a
situation, Mr. Chairman, where we had bills that hadn't been
paid in a year. We had vendors that had cut off the police
department from receiving any goods and services. We had a real
mess.
I'm happy to report that with the hard work of my
colleagues on the board and many, many people in the Capitol
Police force that we have made giant strides in resolving all
of these problems.
STRATEGIC PLANNING
Two years ago we started a strategic planning process in
the Capitol Police operation, and it was an internal process
with some facilitation. And what it did was it yielded a very
realistic and workable long-term strategic plan. We have now a
much clearer view and vision of where we need to go with the
Capitol Police to do the things that the Congress expects us to
do in providing security for the legislative process as well as
providing an open environment for visitors who come to the
Capitol.
Our actions and budget planning process are driven by the
goals of that strategic plan. And that strategic plan goes out
over a number of years. It's not just a 1-year thing, it's a 5
year plan, and we have goals that we've set for ourselves to
achieve.
In the few minutes that I've got here, before I turn this
to Chief Varey, I'd like to talk about the three areas of the
budget that are important to the success of the Capitol Police
in the long term, and that, frankly, are dear to my heart.
TRAINING INITIATIVE
The first is training. As I mentioned earlier, I follow the
philosophy that the only thing worse than training somebody and
losing them is not training them and keeping them. I think that
is a very important philosophy to have in the Capitol Police
Department.
We need training at all levels, not just operations.
Obviously, we understand that the cop on the beat needs to
understand how to respond to all sorts of different situations
and training is absolutely critical. But we also need more
training in the administrative management area and leadership
training because in an organization like the police department,
leadership is absolutely critical. If we don't develop those
leaders that can move up in the ranks as others move on, we're
going to have a real problem going forward.
And, frankly, for too many years the Congress has not
given, in my view, adequate funding for training. So we've just
simply deferred training, and we keep falling further and
further behind other law enforcement agencies.
A bit of an aside in the process of getting ready (if you
see fit) to confirm me to be the commissioner of immigration
and naturalization, I've been spending some time studying that
organization.
The Border Patrol, which is infinitely larger than the U.S.
Capitol Police, has a very effective training program. The
Border Patrol has a retention problem since there are a lot of
people raiding the Border Patrol to get their men and women
because they are so well trained.
But there is a need to train. The Border Patrol certainly
has a good program, and that's emphasized to me how far we have
fallen behind in our training for our U.S. Capitol Police.
We all know that training is critical in law enforcement.
It's essential to morale. One of the problems in any
organization I mentioned earlier, if people don't see a way to
increase their skills to put themselves in line for promotion
or better pay, their morale goes down.
And I think we could have a much better morale situation in
the Capitol Police if we had better training to help these
folks to understand that they're professionals and we treat
them as professionals, and we train them as professionals.
It is absolutely necessary to the kinds of services we
deliver that our police officers be trained and be trained very
well.
CHELTENHAM FACILITY
We finally have gotten access, by the way, as you probably
know, to a facility in Cheltenham, Maryland, that we think will
do perfectly for our training needs. And it has been a long
process of getting there, but we have the facility here. We
have access to the facility, and what we need from this
committee is funding to actually carry out those training
programs within that facility. It is a good deal for the
Congress.
Second, item----
Senator Bennett. May I interrupt you and ask you if that
system is now operational? It was supposed to be by March--oh,
I'm sorry, 2002.
STAFFING
Mr. Ziglar. 2002. The second area is staffing which, again,
has been a bit of a controversy. I don't know if controversy is
the right word, but it has been a bit of a discussion up here.
In 1998 after the tragic shooting of our two officers, Gibson
and Chestnut, there was a multi-agency task force that reviewed
security in the Capitol as well as the U.S. Capitol Police, the
staffing operations, and things like that.
That task force recommended that we increase our force size
to over 2,000. We have taken a hard look at that recommendation
and quite frankly decided that we could do the job just as well
as the task force recommended, with an ultimate goal of 1,694
FTEs.
We believe that we can do the job at that level, but we're
not even at that level now. What we are doing is trying to move
incrementally to get to that level. Even if you authorize 1,694
FTEs for us today, we couldn't get there by the end of this or
the fiscal year we're requesting the budget for. But we are
trying in a very rational, organized way to incrementally move
to that ultimate, most efficient number.
In 2002 we're seeking 49 additional FTEs which would bring
us up to a total of 1,530. So we're still 164 short of that
ultimate authorized FTE level.
One of the 49, by the way, is for our new chief
administrative officer, and I think I can speak for John in
saying he is very interested in seeing you authorize that
particular one.
STRENGTHENING MANAGEMENT
The third area that I talked a little bit about earlier is
the strengthening of the management of the department. I want
to emphasize that we are moving rapidly to update and improve
our management and our technology systems in the police
department. Your continued support in that respect will be very
much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that when I first came
here, the committee instructed me to try to bring some truth in
budgeting to the police operation. And in that sense, what I'm
talking about, of course, is the fact that the Senate Sergeant
at Arms budget had in it a lot of money that was being used for
the police department. It was not in the police budget.
We have successfully moved that money over to the police
budget. We tweaked it some, but it's there again this year in
the police budget, and it provides for reimbursement to the
Senate Sergeant at Arms for services we provide.
As you know, we do the telephones, and we do a lot of other
technology sorts of things, maintain the radios for the police,
and that sort of thing. And it's stuff that we can do quite
frankly very efficiently as opposed to going outside or having
the police develop their own expertise in that area.
But it is an expense item that is now in the police budget,
and at least we know what the true cost of providing the police
department is through this mechanism. So we took note of the
instructions of the committee, and I think we've pretty much
accomplished what you asked us to do.
Mr. Chairman, I want to not steal the chief's thunder, but
I wanted to once again say how honored I have been to be
Sergeant at Arms, how honored I have been to be associated with
the Capitol Police. All of the fine officers, employees, both
sworn officers and the civilian employees of the Capitol Police
Department are loyal, dedicated. They believe in the Senate,
they believe in the House, they believe in the Congress.
They're here to do their job as best that they can, and they do
a great job.
I think there's nothing but up in terms of where this
police department is going in its professionalism and delivery
of its services. I've been honored to be associated with them
and honored to be associated with this committee. And I thank
you very much for your support.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Chief, do you have some additional comments?
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JAMES J. VAREY
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I'm pleased to appear before you today to present
the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the United States
Capitol Police. I'm proud to introduce our new chief
administrative officers, Mr. John McWilliam, to the position of
chief administrative officer. This officer is created by the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2001. Mr.
McWilliam was selected for this important position as the
result of an extensive nationwide search.
Through his prior business and financial operations
experience at various Federal agencies, Mr. McWilliam brings a
great deal of experience to the U.S. Capitol Police. He will
now oversee human resource management, financial management,
and information technology. I am confident under his leadership
we will continue to make needed improvements to the
department's infrastructure.
Our strategic plan and security enhancement plan have
become the cornerstone for departmental planning. In his
testimony, Mr. Ziglar referred to the use of our strategic plan
to guide the development of this budget request. We continue to
implement the changes and improvements as outlined in this
plan.
We also continue to make improvements to the level of
security within the Capitol complex in accordance with the
provisions of the security enhancement plan. Combined, these
initiatives affect both our operational readiness and our
administrative infrastructure.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
I would like to highlight a few of the accomplishments of
the past year. Operationally we have deployed new x-ray
screening equipment and metal detectors at every pedestrian
entrance to the buildings. We have upgraded the video cameras
throughout the complex.
We have begun deploying bullet-resistant podiums to enhance
officer security and officer safety. These podiums will contain
electronic equipment to increase the level of security. We have
expanded and upgraded the duress alarm system and improved the
officers' response times to the alarms.
We are also in the process of enhancing our capability to
handle weapons of mass destruction. Administratively, we have
made improvements in many areas. In particular, we have--we
have recently transitioned to a new financial management system
through a cross servicing agreement with the General Accounting
Office. We have hired professional staff in the areas of human
resources, financial management, and information technology.
Specific goals are being developed for these areas, and we
are making needed improvements using the Booz-Allen-Hamilton
study as a guide. A more comprehensive list of accomplishments
is included in our budget justification.
As you can see, we are making steady progress to improve
the overall condition of the department. It is also clear that
many challenges lie ahead, and we will require your continued
support.
THREATS WITHIN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX
Mr. Chairman, there are constant underlying threats to the
Congress, our staff, and visitors in the Capitol complex. As
noted on these charts during fiscal year 2000, there were--we
failed to put up the charts.
Senator Bennett. Thank you for putting them a little
closer.
Mr. Varey. As noted on these charts during fiscal year
2000, there were nine assaults on Capitol grounds and 118 in
the extended jurisdiction zone. There were seven robberies on
the grounds with 242 in the EJZ. There were three burglaries on
the grounds, 175 in the EJZ.
We made 1,107 arrests, including 147 felony arrests, and
recovered 70 weapons within the Capitol complex.
Also during fiscal year 2000, the U.S. Capitol Police
provided 1,287 protective escorts for visiting dignitaries,
conducted 50 security and protective operations for visiting
heads of state, provide police services for 1,000 special
events, including 492 demonstrations, conducted 30,772 canine
explosive searches, conducted 241 dignitary protective
operations for Congress, and handled 1,357 threat assessment
cases against members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, these statistics are indicative of the threat
management responsibilities we carry out on a daily basis. It
is clear that they're a constant, underlying threat to the
Capitol complex and all of those who work and visit here.
Since this issue has such an impact on our budget request
and justification, I would like to offer to you and members of
the committee a classified briefing by the FBI and the Capitol
Police on domestic and international terrorism trends, and the
threat level posed against the Capitol complex in the United
States.
Senator Bennett. We will schedule that.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir. This briefing can be provided at your
convenience either collectively or on an individual basis.
Senator Bennett. I think Senator Durbin and I can get our
schedules together so you only have to do it once.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. The bells have just rung for an 11:15
vote, which means Senator Durbin and I will probably have to
leave here in about 10 minutes. Can you file the balance of
your statement for the record and let me pursue a question or
two?
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief James J. Varey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to present the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request for the
United States Capitol Police.
I would like to introduce our new Chief Administrative Officer, Mr.
John McWilliam. The position of Chief Administrative Officer was
created by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year
2001. Mr. McWilliam was selected for this important position as a
result of an extensive nationwide search. Through his prior business
and financial operations experience at various federal agencies, Mr.
McWilliam brings a great deal of experience to the U.S. Capitol Police.
He will now oversee Human Resources Management, Financial Management,
and Information Technology. I am confident that under his leadership we
will continue to make needed improvements to the Department's
infrastructure.
Our Strategic Plan and the Security Enhancement Plan have become
the cornerstones for Departmental planning. In his testimony, Mr.
Ziglar referred to the use of our Strategic Plan to guide the
development of this budget request. We continue to implement the
changes and improvements as outlined in the Plan. We are also
continuing to make improvements to the level of security within the
Capitol Complex, in accordance with the provisions of the Security
Enhancement Plan. Combined, these initiatives affect both our
operational readiness and administrative infrastructure.
I would like to highlight a few of the accomplishments of the past
year. Operationally, we have deployed new x-ray screening equipment and
metal detectors at every pedestrian entrance to the buildings. We have
upgraded the video cameras throughout the Complex. We have begun
deploying bullet resistant podiums to enhance officer safety. These
podiums will contain electronic equipment to increase the level of
security. We have expanded and upgraded the duress alarm system and
improved officer response times to alarms. We are also in the process
of enhancing our capability to handle weapons of mass destruction
incidents.
We have made great improvements in the administrative areas. We
have recently transitioned to a new financial management system through
a cross-servicing agreement with the General Accounting Office. We have
hired professional staff in the areas of human resources, financial
management, and information technology. Specific goals are being
developed for these areas and we are making needed improvements using
the Booz-Allen Hamilton study as a guide. A more comprehensive list of
accomplishments is included in our budget justification.
As you can see, we are making steady progress to improve the
overall condition of the Department. It is also clear that many
challenges lie ahead and we will require your continued support.
Mr. Chairman, there is a constant, underlying threat to the
Congress, our staff and visitors, and the Capitol Complex, as evidenced
by the following statistics. During fiscal year 2000, the U. S. Capitol
Police:
--Conducted 241 dignitary protective operations
--Recovered 70 weapons within the Capitol Complex
--Made 1,107 arrests, including 147 felony arrests
--Conducted 30,772 K-9 explosive searches
--Handled 1,357 threat assessment cases
--Provided 1,287 protective escorts for visiting dignitaries
--Conducted 50 security and protective operations for visiting heads
of state and
--Provided services for 1,000 special events, including 492
demonstrations.
We must make it a priority to continuously improve the capabilities
of the U.S. Capitol Police to deter, detect, respond to, contain, and
mitigate a wide range of threats, to include random acts of violence.
The Department's capability is based on three primary factors: adequate
staffing, adequate training, and adequate funding.
With regard to our staffing level, last year our budget request
included funding to increase our FTE level from 1,511 to 1,611. The
requested positions were part of the incremental increase of FTEs which
began as a result of the 1998 Security Review. That review found that
the USCP was significantly understaffed given the physical environment
and the complexity of our mission. Therefore, each year we would
incrementally increase our FTE level until such time as the optimum
level of 1,694 was achieved. This figure would allow us to fully
implement a key recommendation of the Security Review to staff all
building access points with two officers. This level of deployment
affords greater security to those who work and visit within the Capitol
Complex and also enhances officer safety.
I was deeply concerned during our last budget cycle when our FTE
level was reduced to 1,481, while at the same time, we were given a
directive to begin staffing each access point with two officers. We
simply cannot staff at that level without adding additional officers or
closing building entrances. Currently, we are able to staff each access
point to the Capitol with at least two officers at all times. However,
we cannot fully meet the two officers per door policy at all times at
the House or Senate Office Buildings. Therefore, we have requested an
increase of 49 FTEs for a total of 1,530 in fiscal year 2002. Our goal
remains 1,694.
Adequate staffing is not in itself sufficient. A law enforcement
agency, like the military, is only as good as its training. Our
employees must receive intensive, realistic, demanding training that
closely supports their mission. We must constantly train our officers
and civilians so they are capable of performing their missions at peak
efficiency. Over the years, our training has been degraded in order to
meet operational requirements. If we do not move to reverse this
situation, we will experience a resulting degradation of our
operational readiness and effectiveness.
Therefore, I have made training a priority item in our budget
request. We have begun a revitalization of the training effort, and
request your support to expand our efforts.
Our training requirements are complex and varied. We provide
security for the most visible symbol of democracy in the world, and we
do so in a manner that allows the ``Peoples House'' to remain open to
all visitors. We must provide tactical training that allows our
officers to respond the entire spectrum of threats, ranging from a lone
gunman at a building entrance to the use of a weapon of mass
destruction. We must provide diversity and courtesy training that
allows our officers to engage and assist the nearly two million
visitors per year. We must provide training that allows our officers to
balance security concerns with the people's exercise of their First
Amendment rights during the nearly 500 demonstrations annually.
Our training request includes funding to allow each officer to
receive an additional 40 hours of duty specific, in-service training.
Unlike other agencies, we must replace officers in training with
officers working in an overtime capacity in order to maintain police
services. This requested funding will allow us to pay that overtime to
support this critical training incentive.
In addition, we must maintain the proficiency and effectiveness of
our operational and administrative personnel. This has become a
significant concern due to the complexity and diversity of our mission.
Funding is requested for our personnel to complete continuing education
and certification courses which enable them to maintain mandatory
certification requirements.
In addition to training, there are two areas that I would like to
emphasize.
As you are aware, the Department currently receives support for
computers, printing, and telecommunications from the Senate Sergeant at
Arms. I feel that the management and accountability for these services
would be better served by having the Department budget for and
administer these expenses. If approved, we would reimburse the Senate
Sergeant at Arms for these services. I would like to point out that
should these amounts not be approved, they will need to be restored to
the Senate Sergeant at Arms fiscal year 2002 budget.
Secondly, we have an urgent need to modernize the information
technology capability of the Department. This budget correlates
information technology activities with the USCP Strategic Plan, the
Information Technology Strategic Plan, and the Information Technology
Modernization Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan has received
high marks from the General Accounting Office, and we have now reached
the point where we need additional funding to continue with the
improvements in this critical area. The requested increase will allow
us to continue to address information technology deficiencies and
update our systems.
Mr. Chairman, we have recently amended our budget request in order
to fund an issue which I feel is vitally important not only to the
continued professional development of the police department, but also
to the morale of our personnel. This issue involves a pay adjustment
for our sworn officers to achieve pay comparability with recently
approved pay scales for U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service
Uniformed Division. By providing a fair and competitive pay schedule
which rewards career development, the U.S. Capitol Police will be able
to continue to attract and retain professional career oriented
personnel.
In closing I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Committee for the support you have given me over the past year. The
issues which lay before us are challenging. Our ability to provide
services and protect the United States Congress, its staff and
visitors, and these historic buildings is largely determined by our
levels of training, funding and staffing. With the continuing support
of this Committee and the Congress, the United States Capitol Police
will remain strong and up to the challenge.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, I appreciate that. The Senate
has a way of getting in the way of things that we need to do
here.
TRAINING FACILITY
Let me talk to you about your training facility at
Cheltenham. Included in your request is a $105,000 item for the
Anacostia training facility. Does this reflect the idea that
Anacostia will only be needed for about half a year and that
you will, in fact, be in Cheltenham by March of 2002?
Mr. Varey. That's correct, sir. As soon as we're able to
move into Cheltenham, we'll discontinue our liaison with the
Navy at Anacostia. And that expense will no longer be incurred
by the Capitol Police.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Senator Bennett. You've talked about the Booz-Allen
strategic plan and the operations. We would like a list of the
specific recommendations and where you are on each one, if you
could provide that.
Mr. Varey. Yes, we certainly can.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Is there any updates since the Booz-
Allen-Hamilton report where you've changed the strategic plan?
Mr. Varey. We're continuing to upgrade the strategic plan
and are in the process of revising the upgrades at the moment,
sir.
COMPARABILITY PAY
Senator Bennett. You've got a request in here for
comparability pay. Do you have any specific data, other than an
anecdotal evidence here and there about officers leaving
because of comparability pay? I remember a discussion with the
metropolitan police, and we tried to get comparability with the
metropolitan police. And now you're talking about comparability
with the Park Service and the Secret Service Uniform Division.
Is there anybody else out there that we're going to hear about
comparability for at some point in the future?
Mr. Varey. I would imagine that would be the case from
other agencies, since the raise that was given to the Park
Police and the Secret Service seems to have set the standard.
Our missions are compatible and the benchmark we've been
using has been the Secret Service and the Park Police because
of the similarity in mission.
We are concerned about the fact that we are losing people
to other agencies. Last year we lost over 100 for the fiscal
year 2001. We lost over 100 police officers. I've asked Mr.
McWilliam to go back in and do an assessment as to the reasons
for those departures. Some I attribute to the fact there was
rumors of a RIF last June on this police department that came
because of some budget controversies.
Senator Bennett. We had that conversation with our friends
in the House.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir, thank you. I'm sure the old philosophy
of last one in, first one out was in the minds of some of the
young officers that we recruited that eventually ended up going
to metropolitan police department, Prince George's County and
Fairfax County and so forth.
We have lost a significant amount of people. I can't give
you the number at the moment. We certainly can provide it at a
later date.
Senator Bennett. And any study you can give us as to why
would be helpful.
Senator Durbin, do you have some questions?
CPR TRAINING
Senator Durbin. I do. Mr. Chairman, I will make them very
brief. One would be a request for information, which you may
not have at hand. I noticed in going through the notes here the
suggestion that some or all of the Capitol Police are trained
in CPR; is that correct?
Mr. Varey. That is correct, sir. We are having problems
again with training, as we've indicated, in terms of going
through the recertification process, and we're trying to do
that right now.
One of the problems that we've had, as we've noted in our
remarks, and you'll see in my statement is that in order for us
to train, we have to pull people off posts and then pay
somebody overtime to fill that vacancy. With the overtime
budget being constrained, it's difficult to do that.
Senator Durbin. If you can give me some indication on that
level of CPR training with the Capitol Police, I'd appreciate
it.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Are there defibrillators available
throughout the Capitol complex for use by the police?
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir, that's a new program we've entered
into with the attending physician's office. Our people are
being trained currently with the attending physician's office.
It is our hope that we will have about 12 within the Capitol
complex. Some will be in our cruisers and some will be pre-
positioned in the office buildings.
NEW OFFICERS
Senator Durbin. I note you anticipate hiring 148 new
officers in the next year. I assume some of that is for
attrition and others for the new spots.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir. One hundred of those will be through
the attrition process and 48 are new FTEs.
Senator Durbin. Which is around 10 percent of the current
FTE?
Mr. Varey. Approximately.
Senator Durbin. Is that the usual, normal rate, 10 percent
a year that you've seen in the past? Or, is that high or low?
Mr. Varey. That kind of fluctuates, sir. Our research
indicates that next year, for instance, 2002 we'll have
approximately 160 officers that will be eligible to retire. Out
of those 160, I believe there's 7 or 8 that are mandatory
retirements. They will have reached the age of 57. They'll have
to go.
Senator Durbin. Are your officers hired after taking a
competitive exam?
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Senator Durbin. What I'd like you to provide for me, if you
will, and we won't have time to get into it at this point is
some indication of the demographics of those who were tested
and hired, particularly as it relates to minorities on the
Capitol Police force.
I would also appreciate it if you would give me some
indication about promotions available to minority officers on
the force as well as historically what has happened. And we can
speak another time about efforts that are made within the
Capitol Police force to make certain that there is equal
opportunity.
Mr. Varey. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, and I would underscore what
Senator Durbin has just talked about. It would be useful if you
would not only give us the long history but frankly the short
history in terms of your own stewardship, if anything has
changed.
If you have found any kind of a problem in the previous
administrations that you've tried to change because you are as
aware as we are of the publicity that's surrounding this. And I
realize there has been a new administration, and if you have
taken steps, I think those ought to be documented as well.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will now go vote, and I think if we have additional
questions, we'll submit them to you in writing so that it isn't
necessary for you to hang around until after the vote is over.
We will come back to hear testimony from Bill Thompson, the
executive director of the Office of Compliance.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just for the record,
put a little comment in here that I just wanted to thank Jim
Ziglar for his wonderful sense of quality, his sense of
integrity and commitment to excellence for the Congress, for
the Capitol Police Board, for the Capitol Guide Board that I've
had the honor of serving on with Jim.
His good humor, humanity, and friendship will truly be
missed and I truly hope, Jim we can maintain that friendship
off Capitol Hill as we go forward. He's been a breath of fresh
air in here.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I truly hope, Jim, we can
maintain that friendship off Capitol Hill as we go forward.
He's been a breath of fresh air in here.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. It's worth delaying our
departure to hear that. The subcommittee is in recess.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Board for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. USCP's first financial audit confirmed violations of the
Anti-Deficiency Act and found material weaknesses in internal controls,
systems and processes related to payroll activities. Many of the
underlying financial management and human resource weaknesses cited in
the financial audit were previously disclosed in the Booz Allen &
Hamilton's January 1999 management report on USCP's administrative
operations.
What Actions have or will be taken to correct these material
weaknesses?
Answer. The USCP has taken numerous actions to address the
deficiencies noted in both the Booz Allen's report and the financial
audit. We have:
--Implemented a core accounting system to track financial
transactions from the obligation to payment phases. We utilize
this system to effect funds control, obligate funds for planned
purchases, manage procurement actions, pay obligations and
monitor budgets.
--Implemented a payroll forecasting and reconciliation process to
monitor the status of the salary accounts to ensure that the
salary appropriation is not exceeded.
--Initiated the development of a financial management policy and
procedures manual and have drafted several core procedures.
--Re-organized the Financial Management Division to provide for
adequate separation of duties and appointed certifying officers
within the USCP.
--Initiated an Investment Review Board to address budget allocation
and preparation issues.
--Developed a policy regarding the maintenance and disposition of
time and attendance data.
--Instituted processes and performance measures which ensure bills
are paid in a timely manner. Average payment processing
statistics for the month of June indicated that vendor payments
were made within 16 days of receipt and travel reimbursements
were made within 5 days of receipt.
--Implemented procedures to ensure that all purchase card orders are
tracked and paid in a timely basis.
--Performed reconciliations covering fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000 to bring all accounts up to date with House financial
records and instituted routine procedures to perform
reconciliations on a monthly basis.
Question. What actions have been taken to respond to other
recommendations in the audit report?
Answer. The USCP has developed a Financial Management Improvement
Plan that identifies the strategic direction for financial management
activities within the organization. This plan identifies planned
actions to address all recommendations and deficiencies noted in the
audit report as well as other opportunities for improvement and
streamlining of financial operations. We are currently in the process
of performing a review and update of the plan.
Question. What controls have you implemented to ensure that there
are no current violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act?
Answer. The USCP takes the status of its appropriated funds very
seriously and the following fund control procedures have been
established to carefully monitor the status of those funds:
Salaries.--The area of greatest concern involves our salary
appropriations. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2001, biweekly
salary projections including base salary, benefits and overtime are
completed, analyzed and distributed to all Bureau Commanders. Any
unusual transactions or trends are reviewed and discussed for their
impact on the organization. In addition, overtime allocations were
delegated to bureau commanders, who remain responsible for not
exceeding those allocations.
General Expenses.--In October 2000, the USCP transitioned to the
GAO's FMS system and utilizes the system to effect funds controls,
obligate funds for planned purchases, pay obligations and monitor
budgets. To effectively utilize the system, the following processes
were instituted:
--For fiscal year 2001, fund certification authority was formally
delegated to the bureau commanders and is in effect.
--Transaction reports are generated and distributed to each Bureau on
a weekly basis.
--Individual account limits are established in the financial
management system to ensure general expense accounts cannot
exceed authorized levels.
--The Financial Management Division has drafted a Financial Policy
Manual which will guide financial management, procurement and
budget decision making in the future.
Question. What plans do you have to independently evaluate
corrective actions to ensure they are properly designed and working
effectively?
Answer. The provisions of the 2001 Appropriations Act which
established the Chief Administrative Officer provided for annual audits
of the financial statements by an independent public accountant (IPA).
Part of the reviews incorporated into the audit process include reviews
of the status and implementations of corrective actions of prior
identified weaknesses and compliance with laws and regulations. An IPA
is currently conducting an audit of the fiscal year 2000 financial
statements.
Question. Last December, legislation was enacted to establish a
Chief Administrative Officer within the USCP. The legislation included
a number of actions the CAO is expected to take in these areas. Please
provide the Committee an update.
Answer. The CAO was hired on February 12, 2001, within the 60 days
required by the legislation. Organizations within the Department were
aligned to create an Office of Administration headed by the CAO.
The enacted legislation required the CAO to:
--Appoint certifying officers--completed
--Prepare audited annual financial statements independent public
accountant hired and audit is on-going
--Prepare a plan of action for administrative responsibilities--In
process and on schedule for submission by August 12, 2001.
Question. Last year, this Committee proposed merging the police
forces of the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office
with the Capitol Police. We believe the there can be efficiencies
gained from such a merger. Please provide the Committee with your views
on such a consolidation.
Answer. We believe the merger of LOC, GPO and Capitol Police
uniformed security and physical security operations (i.e., alarms,
cameras, intrusion detection devices, etc) would provide a more
coordinated and consistently trained force on the Capitol Hill complex.
In order to effect such a transition, the USCP would require a year
to devise an implementation plan for the merger. Significant issues
which would require attention include:
--Assessment of the skill levels of the Library and GPO would need to
be performed and any necessary training would need to be
acquired.
--Additional funding for training would be required to bring any
Library and GPO officers to fully trained status within the
USCP.
--Personnel differences would need to be addressed:
--Officers would be required to be converted to the USCP pay scale
and retirement system or another workable solution would
have to be devised.
--Union issues would need to be addressed. Multiple independent
labor committees (within the FOP) among the USCP, LOC and
GPO.
Question. What are the reasons for Officer attrition within the
USCP?
Answer. The following chart summarizes the reasons for officer
attrition by calendar year since 1995:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year--
Reason ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
2001 \1\ 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education.............................. 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 6
========================================================================
Other Employment....................... 11 51 24 23 18 17 33 177
Civilian........................... 1 12 4 4 7 4 7 39
Law Enforcmt....................... 10 39 20 19 11 13 26 138
========================================================================
Retirement............................. 6 31 29 26 39 47 42 220
Disability......................... 0 4 2 2 5 9 2 24
Optional........................... 5 23 21 15 29 33 24 150
Mandatory.......................... 1 4 6 9 5 5 16 46
========================================================================
Terminated............................. 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Term Probation......................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Deceased............................... 0 1 0 5 2 3 3 14
Personal/Other......................... 5 13 13 5 4 15 10 65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................ 23 98 69 60 64 82 90 486
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of July 28, 2001.
Question. Explain choice of USPP/USSS-UD for bench marking on pay
comparability. Why have we stopped bench-marking against MPD.
Answer. The mission of the USCP compares fairly in terms of mission
requirements and other factors to the U.S. Park Police and the United
States Secret Service-Uniform Division. In addition, Federal benefits
from the USCP are fully transferrable to these other agencies.
Therefore, since fiscal year 1995 we have bench-marked our pay
comparability against those two organizations.
Question. What level of CPR training do officers receive?
Answer. There are currently 70 individuals in the Patrol Division
who have been trained in CPR and defribulator use. Current plans will
require that all sworn officers be trained in CPR, and this training
will become part of the core requirements of the Department.
Question. Are defribulators available for use? How many and who is
trained?
Answer. Three defribulators have been provided to the USCP by the
Office of the Attending Physician and have been deployed on the street
since July. The USCP plans to acquire an additional 9 defribulators for
deployment in our buildings and emergency response fleet.
Question. Provide information concerning advancement (promotion
statistics) and recruitment (tested and selected) of minorities.
Provide information on what has been done over the years to provide
more opportunities for minorities. Highlight what has been done under
Chief Varey's tenure.
Answer. Police Officer Written Examination Results for the current
and two prior years are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pass
Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Male..................... 796 613 451 354 185 141 1,432 1,108 77.4
White Female................... 82 64 46 37 25 20 153 121 79.1
Black Male..................... 683 301 360 165 140 43 1,183 509 43.0
Black Female................... 184 76 114 55 41 12 339 143 42.2
Hispanic Male.................. 108 55 61 41 25 8 194 104 53.6
Hispanic Female................ 16 8 8 3 2 1 26 12 46.2
Other Male..................... 87 63 45 26 21 7 153 96 62.7
Other Female................... 15 6 6 2 3 0 24 8 33.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... 1,971 1,186 1,091 683 442 232 3,504 2,101 60.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment statistics for the past three calendar years, arranged
by demographic affiliation are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 \1\ Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Male........................................................ 109 78 41 228 (65.3)
White Female...................................................... 16 6 10 32 (9.2)
Black Male........................................................ 23 15 13 51 (14.6)
Black Female...................................................... 8 6 4 18 (5.2)
Hispanic Male..................................................... 4 6 3 13 (3.7)
Hispanic Female................................................... 1 0 0 1 (0.3)
Other Male........................................................ 2 4 0 6 (1.7)
Other Female...................................................... 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of July 28, 2001.
Promotion statistics for the past three calendar years, arranged by
demographic affiliation are follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 \1\ Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Male........................................................ 5 10 3 18 (52.9)
White Female...................................................... 2 0 2 4 (11.8)
Black Male........................................................ 2 3 1 6 (17.6)
Black Female...................................................... 0 1 1 2 (5.9)
Hispanic Male..................................................... 0 2 0 2 (5.9)
Hispanic Female................................................... 0 0 0 0 (0.0)
Other Male........................................................ 0 1 0 1 (2.9)
Other Female...................................................... 1 0 0 1 (2.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of July 28, 2001.
The breakdown of promotions by grade:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Promo to: 2000 Promo to: 2001 Promo to:
---------------------------------------- \1\
---------------
Sgt Lt Cap. Sgt Lt Sgt Lt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WM...................................................... 3 2 ...... 7 2 3 ......
WF...................................................... 1 ...... 1 ...... ...... 2 ......
BM...................................................... 2 ...... ...... 3 ...... ...... 1
BF...................................................... ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... 1 ......
HM...................................................... ...... ...... ...... 2 ...... ...... ......
HF...................................................... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
OM...................................................... ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ......
OF...................................................... 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of July 28, 2001.
The examination process is the first in a series of steps used to
select a suitable candidate for service with the USCP. After successful
completion of the written examination, background checks, physical and
psychological examinations, and polygraph tests are used to determine
the candidate's suitability for employment. Because of limitations of
the availability of data by demographic affiliation, specific
information is not readily available to report success rates after the
initial examination to the hiring phase. In addition, data is not
readily available to indicate those who decline offers or who choose
not to continue with the process after the written examination has been
administered.
Because the USCP is committed to a fair an impartial process for
both recruitment and promotions, the entrance exam instruments are
prepared by an outside consultant/contractor and are independently
validated by the contractor to be 100 percent job related and non-
discriminatory. Promotional examinations and assessments are
administered in their entirety by a contractor who conducts preparatory
courses on how the examination is to be administered and for what the
candidates should be prepared. In addition, the promotional process is
managed by a Promotional Process Task Force who not only manages the
process but accumulates lessons learned for incorporation into the next
examination process.
In order to provide opportunities and entice candidates to apply
for positions with the USCP, between 1999 and 2001 (to date), we
attended 31 college job fairs and career days, five of which were
historically black colleges or colleges which maintained an 83 percent
minority enrollment. We are also reviewing, with the assistance of the
test administrator, the testing process and the allotted completion
time frames for the math portion of the exam to determine whether an
extension of the completion time would offer candidates a better chance
at raising test scores without jeopardizing the integrity of the
testing process. Further, we have added more minority officers to our
recruiting staff as part of the current reorganization and are sending
more minority officers to job fairs and schools as well as have
initiated a community outreach program. We are also working to achieve
balance by transferring more minority officers into speciality
assignments. Additionally the Chief has instituted an open door policy
which has provided a forum for minority officers to address issues of
concern directly to him. A March 2000 report by the Department of
Justice indicated that as of June 1998, of federal law enforcement
agencies employing 500 or more full time officers, the USCP employs the
2nd highest percentage (29.8) of black or African American Federal
officers with arrest and firearms authority, has the third largest
representation of female officers (17.9 percent) and maintains an
overall minority representation percentage of 32.7 percent.
In addition to these efforts, we have initiated the process of
contracting for diversity/sensitivity training for all staff. Once all
current staff have been trained, this type of training will become part
of the normal yearly in service training requirement for the
Department. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the total in-service
training requirement will be elevated from 40 to 80 hours per year.
Question. Why has the Board requested a pay comparability increase
for the salary of sworn employees?
Answer. Our request involves a pay adjustment for our sworn
officers to achieve pay comparability with recently approved pay scales
of the U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service, Uniformed Division
(USPP/USSS-UD). By providing fair and competitive pay which rewards
career development, the USCP will be able to continue to attract and
retain professional career oriented personnel.
We have found in terms of compensation is that in all ranks the
USCP loses parity with USPP/USSS-UD agencies as our officers gain years
of service. Essentially our most valuable officers, the most
experienced and those who have contributed to the Department the
longest, are shortchanged when compared to their peers. With 30 years
service, the USCP Private falls $6,332 (10.4 percent) behind his peer's
basic pay with equal service. Additionally, should the USCP retire, his
annual retirement benefits under the CSRS would result in $3,572 less
than his USPP/USSS-UD counterpart. The disparity grows as the rank
increases. A USCP inspector is $15,072 (15.7 percent) behind in salary
compensation. These disparities are compounded when retirement
calculations are added to the equation.
Question. How much was actual spending, by account, in fiscal year
2000 compared to the appropriation?
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Account Fiscal Year 2000 2000 Actual Variance Percent
Appropriation \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Salaries.................................... $46,165,916 $45,366,974 $798,942 1.7
Senate Salaries................................... 47,441,084 47,147,507 293,577 0.6
General Expenses.................................. 6,549,000 6,412,016 136,984 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Including transfers.
\2\ Figures as of 9/30/2000.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT OF BILL THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SUSAN S. ROBFOGEL, CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GARY GREEN, GENERAL COUNSEL
PAMELA TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE
JAMES STEPHENS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order. Our
last witness this morning is Mr. Bill Thompson, Executive
Director of the Office of Compliance. Mr. Thompson is joining
us for the first time, having been appointed Executive Director
in March.
Mr. Thompson, I understand that you have a long and
distinguished career in the field of labor relations, both
public and private sector. And we welcome you here this
morning.
We appreciate your patience going through all of the other
conversations that we had. The Office of Compliance budget
request totals just over $2 million, an increase of $243,000 or
13 percent. This includes funding for 15 FTEs and a 3.7 percent
cost of living increase.
And the increase will allow for increased funding to pay
for contracting hearing officers, mediators, and court
reporters and increased funding for additional health and
safety contract inspections and experts, funding two positions
that are currently vacant, as I understand it.
And we thank you for being here, and we look forward to
your statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
great honor to be here. I'd like to introduce to you a few
other people. The Chair of our Board, Susan Robfogel is to my
left. Our General Counsel, Gary Green, is to my right, and
behind me are the two deputy directors--for the Senate, Pam
Talkin and for the House, Jim Stephens.
I'd like to for just a moment turn the mike over to Ms.
Robfogel. As the Chair of our Board, she has a couple of things
she'd like to say, with the Chair's permission.
Senator Bennett. Surely.
Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to be here today.
I've been Chair for the Board for just about 1 year. This is my
first appearance before your committee as well, and I'm pleased
to be here. You've had a long morning this morning, a full
morning, so I think the appropriate thing would be to go into
the substance of our request, and if I may, I'd like just a
moment or two after that.
Mr. Thompson. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, the two deputies'
terms of 5 years are ending in the next several months, and I'd
like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Chair and
General Counsel Green to thank Pam Talkin and Jim Stephens for
a remarkable record of service to the office. They were there
at the beginning. They have helped implement the Act, and they
have helped me by orienting me during my transition into the
office. I thank them very, very much for their service.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I've submitted written comments regarding the budget
request and would ask that they be entered into the record.
Senator Bennett. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Thompson
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
2002 budget request of the Office of Compliance. I was appointed
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance effective April 2nd of
this year, and am honored to appear before you for the first time.
With me today is the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Office
of Compliance, Susan S. Robfogel. The Board and staff of the Office are
extremely fortunate to have as Chair a person of Ms. Robfogel's
caliber. Also here today are Pamela Talkin, Deputy Executive Director
for the Senate, who has served as the Acting Executive Director prior
to my arrival; James Stephens, Deputy Executive Director for the House;
Gary Green, the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance, and Beth
Hughes-Brown, the Office's Budget Officer. Ms. Talkin and Mr. Stephens
are approaching the end of their five-year terms. I would like to add
my deep thanks and appreciation to each of them for the invaluable
orientation and training they have provided to me as the newcomer among
the executive appointees of the Office.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
As the Committee is aware, our Office is the administrative agency
created in 1995 to carry out the Congressional Accountability Act's
broad mandate to extend the coverage of many nationally mandated
workplace regulatory schemes to Congress and its instrumentalities. The
Office of Compliance is responsible for reviewing and processing
complaints concerning alleged violations of no fewer than eleven
federal workplace regulatory schemes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988,
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code
relating to federal service labor-management relations, and Chapter 43
of Title 38 of the U.S. Code regarding veterans' appointment and
reappointment. We also are responsible for any administrative claims of
retaliation by agencies or employers against employees for the exercise
of employee rights under these statutes as applied through the CAA.
OUR BUDGET HISTORY
The Office's fiscal year 2001 appropriated budget totals $1.816
million, approximately 87 percent of the budget request for this year,
and about 70 percent of our fiscal year 1997 appropriation. A brief
review of the appropriated budget history of the Office of Compliance
reveals a generally downward trend, as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996......................................................$2,500,000
1997...................................................... 2,609,000
1998...................................................... 2,479,000
1999...................................................... 2,086,000
2000...................................................... 1,992,400
2001...................................................... 1,816,000
Some of these budget decreases were, at least in part, requested by
the Office of Compliance as a direct reflection of fluctuating
caseload, improved efficiency in operation, and the shedding of start-
up costs, such as completion of a body of regulations mandated to guide
the administrative process, which had required considerable resources.
At this juncture, we believe the Office has successfully realized the
bulk of the savings which could be obtained through streamlining our
staffing, which has dropped from a fiscal year 1997-98 high of 19 to
the current 15 authorized FTE's.
The Office's established culture of doing as much as possible with
as few dollars and staff as necessary continues to guide us. The Office
of Compliance is very fortunate to have begun on the right fiscal track
under the leadership of former Executive Director Ricky Silberman.
However, we have already wrung out of our spending much of the decrease
in administrative costs that could be derived from improved
efficiencies in an operation our size. Nevertheless, our current budget
request is less than last year's request, reflecting a decrease of over
$36,000.
However, at this point the Office of Compliance is experiencing the
onset of operational stress associated with the continuation of our
downward fiscal trajectory. Consequently, it is with a measured sense
of concern for the future that we come before you today.
OFFICE'S FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET ESTIMATE
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office seeks a modest
net increase in funding in the amount of $243,000. When we requested
this increase, we were concerned that our current appropriation left
absolutely no room for variance from the relatively low number of new
cases and hearings we had in fiscal year 2000. This concern has been
underscored in the first half of the current fiscal year by the fact
that we have already been required by our statute to commit
approximately 80 percent of the total budgeted for payments for
mediators and hearing officers.
In addition, the OSHA inspection and enforcement efforts of our
General Counsel and his staff are stretched thin. At this point, due in
part to our current funding level for contracted safety and health
experts, the Office is unable to respond to some complaints or requests
for investigation of alleged safety and health hazards in the
facilities for which we are responsible in an expeditious manner.
Therefore, an increase is included in our fiscal year 2002 request to
enable us to contract with additional experts so we can reduce the time
it currently takes to make health and safety inspections.
In the first seven months of this fiscal year, we've had 330
requests for counseling, as compared to 46 during the same seven months
in fiscal year 2000, and our case load is again increasing in many
other areas of our regulatory responsibility. For example, increasing
numbers of legislative branch employees are making use of the Office's
unfair labor practice authority and remedies, as collective bargaining
relationships mature.
Therefore, the largest items within our requested increase of
$243,000 include: increased funding to pay contracted hearing officers,
mediators, and court reporters; increased funding for additional health
and safety contract inspections and experts; and funding adequate to
staff our 15 FTE positions, two of which are currently vacant.
Our goal for the current fiscal year continues to be to keep the
Office within our fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Together with Chair
Robfogel and the Board of Directors of the Office, the other statutory
appointees and I respectfully request that the Committee respond
favorably to the fiscal year 2002 budget.
We will be happy to respond to any inquiries from the Chair and the
Members of the Committee. Thank you.
CASE LOAD AND BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Thompson. Let me only touch briefly on the central
theme of our submission. The Office of Compliance is operating
this current budget year on approximately 70 percent of our
fiscal year 1997 appropriation.
In reviewing past budget proposals submitted by the office,
I learned that much of the downward trend during the past 3 or
4 fiscal years was not the result of cuts by the Congress but
was actually requested by the administration of the office. In
one of those hearings, Executive Director, Ricky Silberman,
said, and I quote, ``Our budget request is based on really
taking a hard look at our program and trying to see how we can
bring those costs down.''
We have a very lean staff and our people really function as
utility infielders. They fulfill more than one function. As the
new Executive Director, together with Ms. Robfogel, I certainly
say that this policy and this philosophy of budget will
continue.
The principal driver of our cost is case load. And at this
point in our current fiscal year, we're continuing to
experience a significant increase in the number of contacts,
the number of requests for inspections, and the number of
hearings that are requested and counselings.
For example, as of October 1, 2000, we had 10 pending
counseling requests. As of yesterday we had 336. A significant
number of those requests concern group complaints. However,
under the Act every request for counseling and mediation must
be processed individually, and there is a major increase in
that case load.
Senator Bennett. Can I ask you if that is tied primarily to
the Capitol Police or is it----
Mr. Thompson. The largest group is the Capitol Police, yes.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. But we have a significant--even if you take
away the Capitol Police, we still have a significant increase
in those numbers.
Our health and safety responsibilities are also growing
considerably. That, of course, is generally the responsibility
of the General Counsel's office, but we are beginning to
experience some organizational stress in that regard as well,
in that we are not able to respond to requests for inspection
in all cases within the time frame that we would like to. So
that's one of the reasons why we're requesting additional funds
for the inspections, for per diem or hourly people who could be
on contract.
The request for the $243,000 increase is really constructed
from a zero based budget. It is based on the same review of our
operation which has taken place each previous year and it will,
we believe, provide nothing more nor less than the
appropriation necessary to provide the dispute resolution and
enforcement services which are necessary for the office to
fulfill the mission given us by Congress.
As I said, the case load is the driver, and several years
ago the cases went down. And at this point, the cases are going
up significantly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. You've only been on board a few
months.
Mr. Thompson. About 6 weeks.
Senator Bennett. About 6 weeks, all right, not even 2
months. Do you have any plans for structural changes in the
organization at this point? From your testimony, I would gather
not but----
Mr. Thompson. I do have an interest in increasing our
educational activities. We currently have a director of
education and counseling and her time is split between
education and other functions. We've heard from user
populations that the visibility of the office is sometimes an
issue, not certainly for want of trying because the office has
a very active process. But I think that we might be able to
increase our efforts in that regard, and I intend to follow up
on that idea.
RESPONSES TO SAFETY AND HEALTH COMPLAINTS
Senator Bennett. Okay. How long does it take to respond to
a complaint of an alleged safety or health hazard, and do you
have a backlog of those complaints?
Mr. Thompson. I'll ask our General Counsel to respond to
that.
Mr. Green. During the course of our past 6 months, Mr.
Chairman, we've had to defer responding several requests for
inspection for a matter of months. One request I have in mind
took us almost 10 months to get to. And several others were
delayed in the range of 3 to 4 months.
It's unfortunate, but we do have a very small staff, and
the requests for inspection have to be analyzed when they come
in to determine the degree of imminence of danger, the
seriousness of it, the number of people involved, and we try to
give priorities as intelligently as we can. Bottom line still
is there are only so many hands to go around.
BACKLOG
Senator Bennett. Do you have a backlog at the moment? Are
there any that are hanging as you take those that you have
initially decided are higher priorities?
Mr. Green. There's no backlog in the sense of requests that
have not been investigated. There are investigations going on
now which may take considerable time to conclude. But there are
no requests for inspections where the investigations are not
begun.
Senator Bennett. So if I understand what you're saying, if
someone calls you and says we have a very serious problem, a
sewer has broken and raw sewage is coming out here and we're
all going to get sick, you would respond to that one
immediately to check that out to see if indeed it was--I'm
exaggerating, obviously, but something that you considered a
significant and immediate hazard you would check immediately.
Something that you think, well, it may be a problem, but it's
not an immediate challenge you would put in queue behind the
first one?
Mr. Green. That's exactly right.
Senator Bennett. So that everything does get responded to
in one way or another virtually immediately?
Mr. Green. No. There are things that appear serious on the
surface or at least warranting an investigation which have to
wait or have had to wait for a matter of months.
Senator Bennett. An evaluation has been made at least
immediately?
Mr. Green. Yes, so that we can make an effort, as best we
can, to attend to what appears to be the most urgent
immediately.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
Mr. Green. The problem with requests for inspection is that
ordinarily your superficial impressions are not--or initial
impressions about the seriousness of the problems--are not
always borne out.
We are in the midst of some investigations right now that I
wish we had started much earlier because the health hazards
appeared to be more significant to more people than was
realized at the start.
Senator Bennett. Are there any where the initial impression
goes the other way, where you started something and then when
you got into it you thought, gee, this one could wait while
we're pursuing something else?
Mr. Green. Yes, yes, I think so.
Senator Bennett. That's a micro management that I apologize
for, and I'll back away from that.
SELECTION OF NEW DEPUTY DIRECTORS
You talk about your deputies fulfilling their 5-year terms.
How will you select new deputies, and will they also be limited
to a 5-year term?
Mr. Thompson. The Chair of the Board, Ms. Robfogel, is
responsible for the appointment of the appointees, including
myself, Mr. Green, and the two deputies with the advice and
consent of the Board of the office. And I would defer to her
for any further comments.
Ms. Robfogel. The way our statute is written, anyone
appointed to one of the statutory appointee positions,
including the Executive Director, the General Counsel, and the
two deputy executive directors is limited to one single 5-year
term. As are each of the Board member positions. There is no
potential for succeeding oneself.
Senator Bennett. And how do you choose the deputies? Is
this an open competition or----
Ms. Robfogel. Yes, it is. We have advertised publicly, both
within the governmental advertising facilities, and we have
also advertised the positions in the Washington Post. And we
did the same thing when we were recruiting for the Executive
Director position, and we also utilized the services of an
executive search firm.
Senator Bennett. Are the terms staggered, or do they all
expire at the same time so you get a new Director, a new
Chairman, and two new deputies all at once?
Ms. Robfogel. Unfortunately that seems to be the position
we're in right now. Our new Executive Director came on board 6
weeks ago. As I told you, I came on as the Chair just about 1
year ago. The entire Board has been appointed within the last
year and a half, and we will lose one of our deputy executive
directors in August and the other in September.
So there are a lot of new people. Fortunately we have had
some period of overlap. The statute is written in an
interesting way.
Mr. Thompson. It's extremely important that we have had
some period of overlap.
Senator Bennett. I would think a little institutional
memory is always a good idea.
Ms. Robfogel. I would echo what our Executive Director has
already said, though, in terms of the yeoman's job that both of
our deputy directors have done, both in bringing along the
Board, its Chairman, and now our new Executive Director. They
have been wonderful.
Senator Bennett. Well, we might take a look at changing the
law and staggering--staggering some of the appointments so that
there is a little bit of institutional memory. If you have any
thoughts on that, share them with us.
Ms. Robfogel. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. We're not the committee that can do that,
but we know some who are, so we would appreciate that.
NEW GROUP OF CASES
What do you anticipate out of the case load that you've
described, the majority of which is the Capitol Police. There's
been some publicity about the Capitol Police. Do you see that
as a major new challenge, and is it going to move through the
system like a pig in a python? Is it, in your view, going to
create a new base line that will require a higher kind of
funding from here on out?
Mr. Thompson. I think I would, if I could answer that in a
slightly broader context, I think where the office is right
now, there were initially quite a few start-up costs and the
creation of regulations, et cetera, which cost money. That
process, while not completed, is largely done.
And a lot of the extraneous start up and obtaining of
greater efficiencies has sort of bottomed out at this point in
an agency as small as ours.
What has happened is that vector, which is the downward
costs, has bottomed out. At the same time, we have the
collective bargaining process taking hold, which means that we
have collective bargaining agreements, we have unfair labor
practices being filed. We will be responding to appeals from
arbitrations and at the same time, because of the union
presence, we're getting a group organizational presence among
the employees. We are beginning to see more of these large
group actions being taken.
There's currently a case involving the Architect which has
made it into the District Court which has several hundred
plaintiffs. We now have the Black Capitol Police Officers
Association activity. We expect that we're going to see more of
that kind of thing. It's a natural outgrowth of a robust
collective bargaining process.
So while it's impossible to make a firm forecast on case
load, I think my experience in this area, which is
considerable, suggests to me--and I think the others will
agree--that we're going to see more and more significant
issues.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions.
Ms. Robfogel. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just by way of
summing up, I think one of the most important things for the
committee to realize in our request for an increase is that, as
this statute has matured, the number of requests to our office
have increased.
If we are unable to service these complaints on an
expeditious basis, people do have the option to go outside of
our office, as they go through the intake procedure in our
office, after they've gone through mediation with us, they have
the option of either staying with us and having their cases
heard by our hearing officers, where the process is totally
confidential, and there's absolutely no publicity. Or they have
the option of going to the courts.
I think one of the reasons our statute was written the way
it was is so that we could keep as many of these cases and get
them resolved confidentially and internally. If we don't have
the money to pay hearing officers and people's cases are
delayed, I fear that one of the objectives in Congress passing
the legislation the way it did will be lost.
So I think that's a very important part of our budgetary
increase request, as is the part that you yourself touched on a
little bit before, our need for enough inspectors to be able to
respond to the health and safety complaints. Because if people
do not believe their complaints are being looked at
expeditiously, they're going to look for other avenues to
complain, and the statute will not work the way we all hope it
would. Thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Bennett. Thank you, that's very helpful. No further
questions. Thank you for your appearance. The subcommittee is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Wednesday, May 16, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:04 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Bennett, and Stevens.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MICHAEL TURNBULL, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT
JACK BOERTLEIN, DEPUTY BUDGET DIRECTOR
LARRY STOFFEL, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SENATE
AMITA POOLE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. The subcommittee will come to order.
I thank all those who have gathered today. We are kind of
in limbo in terms of organization of the Senate, and I think
that may be resolved soon. I hope it is.
But the Appropriations Committee is traditionally a
bipartisan effort, and I am happy to be working with my
colleagues here, Senator Bennett and Senator Stevens, on the
issues involving the Architect of the Capitol's office.
Mr. Hantman, I understand, is accompanied by Assistant
Architect Michael Turnbull; Ms. Amita Poole, Administrative
Assistant; Larry Stoffel, Senate Superintendent; and Jack
Boertlein, Deputy Budget Director.
BUDGET PROPOSAL
The Architect of the Capitol budget proposal totals
approximately $300 million, which includes $199 million for
ongoing operations and maintenance, and $102 million for the
capital budget. O&M would increase almost $26 million, or 15
percent, to accommodate such things as 48 additional staff, pay
raises, and price level increases, such as the rising cost of
utilities under the budget request. The capital budget would
increase $68 million, or 200 percent, over fiscal year 2001 to
fund 115 projects. Within the capital budget, cyclical
maintenance makes up about half of the proposed spending with
the largest project being the Capitol dome preservation. The
capital budget does not include any additional funds for the
Capitol Visitor Center, which we will discuss, I am sure, this
morning. It is expected to be a major project for the Architect
of the Capitol next year with construction commencing next year
if the current plan is followed.
Before I turn to my ranking member, I would like to say to
my colleagues that my staff did a little research to find out
if anyone had ever served as chairman of a House Appropriations
Subcommittee and a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. The only
evidence they could find of that having occurred was a fellow
by the name of Everett McKinley Dirksen from the State of
Illinois who served as chair of the Ag Subcommittee in the
House and the D.C. Subcommittee in the Senate. So, we are
keeping it within the Illinois confines.
Senator Bennett, your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I welcome you
to the chairmanship and tell you that this is a fun
subcommittee to have the opportunity to chair. I think you will
enjoy it. These are good people to work with. We welcome you to
this assignment and pledge to you whatever support we can
provide to see the long tradition of bipartisanship and
unanimity within the Senate is continued. Sometimes we do not
have that degree of unanimity with our friends on the House
side, but that seems to be the way the founding fathers created
it.
I have a number of questions that we need to get into
because the Architect of the Capitol is something of a
lightening rod of challenges here on Capitol Hill. But I will
defer my questions until after we have heard from Mr. Hantman
and his people.
Senator Durbin. Senator Stevens, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I welcome you also as
the subcommittee chairman, Senator.
When I came to the Senate, we were still a new State. Two
of us arrived at the same time, and Senator Dirksen walked us
down the aisle. So, we revere your predecessor, and I am glad
to see you hold this distinction of chairing two subcommittees
for your State.
I do not have any questions. I have come to hear the
statement. I cannot stay very long. I would like to suggest, if
we can, Mr. Hantman give us a summary of his statement so we
might proceed on that basis.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Mr. Hantman, thank you very much for joining us. Your
statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety. If
you would like to summarize at this point, please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do that.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished much over
these past several years and we continue to build our team to
better enable us to serve the Congress going forward. But we
need to support and strengthen our present workforce, supply
them with the tools and training they require to reduce our
accident, illness, and lost time rates. We need to bring new
people with new skills and abilities into our work place to be
able to better respond to the Congressional Accountability Act
in areas of fire safety, occupational and environmental safety,
as dictated by law, in areas of planning and project
management, information resources management, and energy
savings.
We also need pay flexibility to retain and attract senior
managers, to help plan, implement and oversee our many
projects. The 1990 pay legislation that specifies titles and
salaries for senior staff has no relevance to the needs of
today.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have reached the halfway
point in the preparation of construction documents for the
Capitol Visitor Center within schedule. We will, with the
availability of funding and the approval of the Capitol
Preservation Commission, go out for competitive bidding during
the last quarter of this calendar year. I assure you that I am
personally committed to bringing the project in on schedule and
budget for the identified scope. We have developed new project
management techniques and created a dedicated team for this
project, supported by a nationally recognized construction
management company, to assure the maintenance of budget and
schedule on a day-to-day basis.
U.S. BOTANIC GARDEN
Construction work on the U.S. Botanic Garden is nearing
completion after overcoming significant construction issues
that have delayed the project. It is a magnificent structure we
can all be proud of and I would welcome the opportunity to show
this committee the complexity of the project and the planting
activities that have begun.
RESPONSIBILITIES
For accountability purposes, we remain committed to
continuing our successful efforts to implement a full and
compliant financial management system. Much fire safety work
has been initiated and accomplished across the Capitol complex,
and we can give you a building-by-building status report on
what has been done and what needs to be done going forward.
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT
An additional important project is the expansion of the
West Refrigeration Plant. It is currently under design and we
have forwarded a budget amendment for this request. We will be
coming back to the committee for full construction funding in
fiscal year 2003.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, once again, I am proud of our accomplishments
in so many areas, much of which is documented in the statement.
While there is much left to address in the coming years, we
look forward to working with you as we successfully face those
challenges and continue to provide strong support to the
Congress and build an even stronger and responsive AOC.
I would be happy to respond to any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman
OVERVIEW
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the priorities that
drive the budget needs of the Architect of the Capitol organization. I
have been Architect of the Capitol for four years. I am proud of what
the AOC has accomplished in that period, and look forward to
significant additional accomplishments in the years ahead.
As you know, there is a historic amount of work currently on our
plate and much more needs to be accomplished over the coming years.
Many needs have been deferred and our structures continue to age. This,
combined with new expectations of how our structures must accommodate
modern safety, security and technological needs, along with the
increasing demand for space, all serve to drive the funding needs for
physical improvements.
As important as these physical improvements are, the most important
needs addressed by our budget are investments in our human
infrastructure. It is important that we support and strengthen our
present workforce and bring people with new skills and abilities into
our workplaces, to staff key positions to meet the physical challenges
that confront the Capitol complex. We also need to provide our existing
workforce with the tools and training they require to continue to not
only provide, but to continuously improve, our support of the U.S.
Congress and the American people. We have been working to do this in a
difficult recruitment atmosphere, where strong competition has existed
for qualified people in what has been a near full-employment economy.
Last year I made fire safety the top priority for AOC, and we have
made significant progress on this multi-year effort (see Appendix A).
While we are continuing our strong progress on fire safety initiatives,
this year we are stressing Life Safety issues for our staff. People
come first. We are a service organization, and without a dedicated and
safe staff little could be accomplished. We are therefore focusing on
reducing our accident and illness lost work-time rates, training our
staff and continuing to build the human infrastructure to support the
Congress well into the future (see Appendix B). We are continuing to
hire necessary staff in the area of Life Safety as well as Fire Safety,
to better support these critical initiatives, and we are requesting
funding to build and maintain these programs going forward.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 REQUEST
Our overall fiscal year 2002 request of $298,957,000 includes
$196,356,000 for ongoing operations and maintenance and $102,601,000
for the capital budget to meet fire and life safety, security and
infrastructure improvements.
The operations and maintenance budget request reflects a 15.1
percent increase of $25,749,000. The increase is comprised of:
$3,446,000 to fund 48 essential positions needed to carry out programs
required by the Congressional Accountability Act and other needs;
$8,753,000 for COLAs and other mandatory pay items; $5,141,000 for
price level increases, the majority of which are to meet the rising
cost of utilities; and a net increase of $8,409,000 for items related
to other workload increases.
The capital budget request includes 115 projects identified for
funding in fiscal year 2002. Seven projects, which total $66,970,000,
account for approximately 65 percent of the capital budget request. The
seven projects are: the Rehabilitation of the Capitol Dome
($42,500,000); Off-Site Delivery/Screening Center for the U.S. Capitol
Police ($6,750,000); the new Library of Congress Audio Visual
Conservation Center, Culpeper, VA ($5,000,000); Renovations to the
Rayburn Cafeteria ($3,460,000); design and land for a Vehicle
Maintenance Facility for the U.S. Capitol Police ($3,260,000); design
to Construct a Garage on the Eastern End of Square 724 ($3,000,000);
and Elevator Modernizations in the House Office Buildings ($3,000,000).
(see Appendix J).
CAPITAL PROJECTS
As we look to the future, we believe it important to note that over
the past year the AOC has accomplished much, as evidenced by progress
on the following capital projects (see Appendix F):
The Dirksen Senate Office Building project remains on budget and on
time, a tribute to how well-managed a project can be when AOC has
adequate internal resources to properly supervise a project, and when
Members and staff understand and are actively involved in such
projects. The Dirksen project will be completed this December,
providing what is essentially a contemporary building interior with an
intact historic exterior--at about one-third the cost of constructing a
new building, and with all work being done in an occupied structure.
Construction work on the Botanic Garden Conservatory is nearing
completion after overcoming significant construction issues that have
delayed the project. Planting activities have begun in the low glass
houses where construction activity is winding down. We expect to begin
guided tours in September while the planting continues, and when most
of the planting has been accomplished, we are planning a formal
conservatory-wide opening for the first week in December. The
contiguous privately funded National Garden project is poised to go to
bid and when completed it will complement the conservatory with its
outdoor horticultural exhibits and its Interpretive Learning Center for
children.
The construction documents for the Capitol Visitor Center are
proceeding well and will, with the availability of funding and the
approval of the Capitol Preservation Commission, go out for competitive
bidding during the last quarter of this calendar year.
The Master Plan for the Capitol Building will be completed by the
end of this calendar year, and will provide a roadmap for how to best
bring this 200-year-old landmark structure up to modern standards,
while retaining its historic integrity and stateliness. Since this
Master Plan will be completed well into fiscal year 2002, we anticipate
requesting approximately $8 million in fiscal year 2003 to begin the
actual design drawings for work identified therein. Construction
funding will be requested in successive years.
Construction work on the Senate Perimeter Security Project is well
underway. The first phase at the intersection of New Jersey and C
Street is virtually complete with steel bollards, guard house, traffic
arm, and granite pylons in place. The second phase at Delaware and D
Street is under construction. The contract for the Capitol Square
Perimeter Security Project has been awarded, the construction staging
area has been established on Capitol Grounds, and phased work is about
to begin on the east side of the Capitol. In other areas of security
needs, we continue to work with the U.S. Capitol Police to install
upgraded building security equipment.
Much fire safety work has been initiated and accomplished across
the Capitol complex. We also worked with the Library of Congress and
the Office of Compliance on an extensive examination of fire safety
conditions in the Jefferson, Madison and Adams Buildings and have
developed a, multi-year, building by building plan to address these
issues (see Appendix A). Timelines have been, or are being, developed
to address remaining fire safety challenge.
PERSONNEL NEEDS, WORKLOAD, AND LIFE SAFETY ISSUES
The AOC injury/illness rate is much too high and must be lowered
significantly. The well being and safety of our staff is of the highest
concern. In the context of what impact the work described above has on
AOC staff and the injury/illness rate, however, it is important to note
that, in addition to hiring contractors to design and build the larger
fire safety projects in the Library of Congress, the AOC for the next
two years must also dedicate 12-15 internal people from AOC's Library
buildings and grounds workforce full time to address the many smaller
fire safety projects. This means that they are effectively lost for
other, more routine but essential projects. This mirrors our situation
across the Capitol complex. For many years, we have reassigned workers
to additional tasks while reducing the total number of employees within
AOC. This is true in all of our jurisdictions. We have now reached a
point where we cannot continue to assign major additional work to our
staff and still expect them to accomplish the many other basic day-to-
day tasks that are important to support the mission of the U.S.
Congress and the proper maintenance of its buildings and grounds.
Historically, when workloads increase significantly while the
workforce contracts, the stress of having more to do with fewer people
often results in an increase in accidents. I believe this is one of the
major factors behind our high injury rate, although it is not the only
factor. Over the past decade we have markedly downsized the AOC
workforce while increasing the workload. Our workforce is down 20
percent from fiscal year 1993 levels. This downsizing, accompanied by
an increasing workload, has put our employees under great pressure.
While it has been possible to increase productivity to an extent,
while still decreasing staff levels, much of the work accomplished by
AOC employees is generally not of a nature where technology alone can
replace human effort and skills. In fact, the implementation of the
Congressional Accountability Act has increased, not decreased, the
amount of skilled and properly trained people necessary to complete the
wide range of tasks we are responsible for.
CONFINED SPACES--ONE OF 41 MANDATED LIFE SAFETY PROGRAMS
An example of our changing workplace is illustrated by the fact
that four years ago, a worker who needed to enter a utility vault to do
simple maintenance work would remove the manhole cover, climb down into
the space, do his or her job, climb out, put the cover back into place,
and go on the next task. Today, a worker who needs to enter a utility
vault--a confined space, in contemporary safety parlance--would first
need to obtain and fill out a permit form to notify the permitting
authority of the plan to enter a confined space. The worker now needs
to be accompanied by another employee to act as a safety monitor, open
the confined space, place the appropriate rescue gear and barriers
outside the confined space, sample the air quality within the space
before entering it, enter the space in the appropriate manner and with
appropriate safeguards, maintain communications with the worker
outside, do the work, exit the space, close the space, remove the
barriers and rescue equipment, complete the permit, and report back to
the permitting authority that the employee has completed the task and
exited the confined space.
What used to be a half-hour task for one employee has therefore
become, at a minimum, an hour and a half task for at least two
employees, plus the additional supervisory/administrative time. While
this methodology is clearly safer, it also severely impacts
productivity levels for a staff that has continued to shrink.
Additionally, all employees who enter confined spaces must receive
initial training, and regular refresher training. Air sampling
equipment, rescue gear, and communications gear must be provided and
maintained. A permitting process must be created, and permits must be
properly obtained, executed, and filed when embarking on work in
permitted confined spaces. This point regarding record keeping
highlights a related need--we must assure that our IT environment is
available and reliable to our employees so we can carry out critical
business functions--and that is why we have asked for more resources in
that area. And, a confined space survey must be completed for the
entire 14,000,000 square feet of space on the Capitol complex to
identify and label the areas that may only be entered by persons with
the proper training, equipment, and using the proper procedures.
The confined space program is only one of 41 life safety program
areas that AOC, working with the Public Health Service, must formalize
and retrain workers to handle properly. More detailed information about
these matters is in Appendix A. But this single example illustrates an
important point. Our workplace has become more, not less, labor
intensive in response to OSHA, EPA and Department of Labor provisions
while our workforce has been reduced.
DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS
Most of the work we do, most of our daily physical effort, goes to
support the day-to-day operations of the Congress. For example, last
year our Senate Superintendent's Service Center received and responded
to 82,154 telephone calls, that translates to 224 per day, or 1,580 per
week. The Service Center issued 83 service orders per day or 30,361
altogether in fiscal year 2000. These service orders ranged from
routine changing of light bulbs, to construction of custom tables and
bookshelves, to changing carpets for an entire suite, which
necessitates removal and replacement of all of an office's furniture
and contents. The Senate Superintendent's Day Labor Division assisted
in 35 special events each day during that year for an annual total of
12,907. The Furniture Division responded to 19 requests per day for a
total of 6,845 furniture requests for the year.
Our Senate Superintendent also takes care of office moves and
custodial work, services subways and elevators, cleans 600 restrooms
every day, provides restroom supplies, and cleans up after emergencies,
among his myriad tasks. As much as possible, we try to minimize
disruptions for the Senate not only with daily tasks but even with
major projects, like the Renovation Project in the Dirksen Office
building.
MAJOR CAPITAL REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
The Capitol Dome renovation's second phase, at $42.5 million, is
our largest Capitol project request this year. This will complete the
work necessary to make certain that the Capitol Dome, at the beginning
of the 22nd Century, will remain the most recognizable symbol of
representative democracy in the world.
In the Hart Senate Office Building, we're asking for $1.44 million
to modernize 12 elevators and another $1.1 million for security
improvements at the Horseshoe Entrance.
Space is a vital need and a constant concern on Capitol Hill. It
has been for 201 years. Our budget request contains $3 million to
prepare construction drawings for a parking Garage at Square 724,
adjacent to the Capitol Police Headquarters. Our design of that project
will allow for future construction, if necessary, atop the parking
structure. $2.1 million is requested for the next phase of
implementation of our new Financial Management System that also is
building for the future. We successfully implemented the initial
standard general ledger module in September of 2000 and now are working
on implementing procurement, funds control and accounts payable
modules.
STAFFING REQUESTS
The Congressional Accountability Act, the interpretations of the
Office of Compliance on how fire codes should be applied to the Capitol
campus, the aging infrastructure of our priceless and unique historic
buildings, the changed expectations of the American public, all mean
that the AOC must continue to change and improve its methods of
operations, that we have to retrain our workers, hire some key new
ones, address the tasks at hand in new and safer ways.
While we contract out many of our major projects and some of our
technical needs, we still need to have the proper internal resources to
adequately manage and coordinate this work. We have been working hard
to hire the fire safety professionals we need to help our Fire Marshal
and Executive Director of Facilities Management accomplish their tasks.
We are similarly actively and aggressively recruiting the people we
need to serve as jurisdictional life safety experts and coordinators,
and the right construction management professionals for the many major
tasks that must be successfully accomplished (see Appendix I).
The 48 additional positions we request this year are people who
must be put in place to prepare our workforce for the future. They are
so essential that we have already begun the hiring process, but need
funding to continue paying these key personnel in successive years
without having to make further cuts in shop staffing levels in all
jurisdictions.
These include five positions to support fire safety programs; eight
positions to support environmental and life safety programs; five for
the campus energy savings program required by Section 310 of the 1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.
We also need 19 persons to implement high priority programs. These
positions include the two necessary to support preparation and issuance
of auditable financial statements. AOC has been working with GAO on
this, and one of things we have discovered is that AOC has never been
staffed assure appropriate separation of functions necessary to
maintain proper internal controls, nor enough staff to prepare and
reconcile monthly and annual auditable financial statements (see
Appendix G). Seven more positions are to improve the project delivery
process. Like most government agencies, AOC has to manage far more
external contracts and work than in the past, and like most government
agencies, AOC does not have enough people in place to manage outside
contractors properly. We are also dead last in the Legislative Branch
in percentage of our staff dedicated to Intelligence Technology
efforts.
We need two more air conditioning mechanics at the Library of
Congress to safeguard its priceless collections by maintaining proper
conditions for storage. Three additional workers are needed at the
Capitol Power Plant. And at the Botanic Garden, which has been closed
for a number of years, with the Conservatory scheduled to reopen staff
are required to operate and maintain the facility.
Like the rest of federal government, AOC is responding to the
crisis in human capital by requesting these 48 essential positions for
fiscal year 2002.
CONCLUSION
Once again, I am proud of our accomplishments in so many critical
areas, much of which is documented in the attached appendices \1\.
While there is much left to address in the coming years, we look
forward to working with you as we successfully face those challenges
and continue to provide strong support to the Congress and build an
even stronger and responsive AOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appendices
Appendix A: Initiatives in Life Safety
Appendix B: AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 Achievements
Appendix C: Security Update
Appendix D: Initiatives Regarding the Congressional Accountability
Act
Appendix E: Initiatives in Labor-Management Relations
Appendix F: Status of Selected Capitol Improvements
Appendix G: Financial Management System Improvements
Appendix H: Computer Aided Facilities Management
Appendix I: Project Management Initiatives
Appendix J: fiscal year 2002 Budget Request Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank you for your support and welcome whatever questions or
comments you might have.
APPENDIX A--INITIATIVES IN FIRE, OCCUPATIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has made safety the agency's
number one priority. In the past year, the AOC has undertaken
significant steps to strengthen the fire, occupational and
environmental safety programs. However, much work remains to be done.
An additional thirteen (13) fiscal year 2002 positions are requested
and are in the process of being filled now to better enable the AOC to
develop and implement fire, occupational, and environmental safety
programs and make necessary facility upgrades to comply with fire and
building codes.
In fiscal year 2002, thirty (30) projects totaling over $14.5
million are requested under the Life Safety Category to address
identified fire and/or occupational safety deficiencies across the
Capitol Complex. An additional $362,000 is being requested (see:
Capitol Buildings Salaries and Expenses Operating Budget Life Safety
Operations and Maintenance section) to cover needed environmental
contractor services as well as increases in cost of fire safety and
occupational safety and health program management.
I. Fire Safety
The Fire Marshal Division was created in fiscal year 2001 to focus
on fire safety, life safety, and emergency preparedness program policy,
coordination, inspection, and oversight. Fire protection engineering
design responsibilities are being transferred to the re-established
Fire Protection Engineering Division under the Director of Engineering.
The AOC is working closely with the Office of Compliance to identify
fire and building code concerns and raise the Capitol complex buildings
to modern standards of safety.
Significant progress has been made and is detailed in Section I.
As part of our continuing commitment to fire safety program needs,
the AOC has begun hiring to fill fiscal year 2002 funded vacancies to
ensure adequate staff is available to perform needed work. Full funding
of fire related fiscal year 2002 requests is essential to the AOC's
ability to continue to improve the fire safety posture and programs
across the Capitol complex.
II. Occupational Health and Safety
The Life Safety Division was restructured and renamed the Safety
and Environmental Division in fiscal year 2001 to focus on occupational
health and safety, recycling, and environmental program policy,
coordination, inspection, and oversight. When fully staffed, two
branches will exist--the Safety and Occupational Health Branch and the
Environmental Branch. Environmental Safety is discussed in Section IV
below.
Significant progress has been made and is detailed in Section II.
As part of our continuing commitment to occupational safety program
needs, the AOC has begun hiring to fill fiscal year 2002 funded
vacancies to ensure adequate staff is available to perform needed work.
Full funding of fiscal year 2002 requests is essential to the AOC's
ability to continue to improve the occupational safety posture and
programs across the Capitol complex.
III. Recycling
Additional emphasis was provided to the AOC Recycling program in
fiscal year 2001 by creation of a GS-13 Recycling Program Manager
position to coordinate campus wide recycling effort. The House Office
Buildings recycling program has made significant improvements including
hiring a Recycling Program Manager, a Recycling Assistant and a
recycling team. New recycling containers are being distributed to
Members offices and training is being provided. The Senate recycling
program has made significant improvements as well including hiring a
Recycling Program Manager and working with the Senate Rules Committee
on proposed changes. More information can be found in Section III.
IV. Environmental Safety
The AOC is required to comply with Environmental Protection Agency
Laws and Statutes as enforced by the District of Columbia. The
development of the Environmental program and the analysis and survey
requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and District of
Columbia laws and regulations has not begun due to difficulties filling
the environmental engineer vacancy. Filling of the environmental
engineer position remains a top priority as attention must be given to
environmental matters. Additional contractor support money has been
requested to begin the detailed program review and development
associated with all aspects of the Environmental Program. Full funding
is requested to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. A
more detailed discussion can be found in Section IV.
V. Summary
A brief summary is provided in Section V.
INTRODUCTION
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has made safety his number one
priority. In the past year, the AOC has undertaken significant steps to
strengthen the fire, occupational and environmental safety programs.
The AOC has reorganized the Executive Office for Facilities Management
to allow increased attention and focus on fire safety, life safety,
occupational health and safety, recycling, and environmental programs.
Two separate Divisions have been created under the Executive Officer
for Facilities Management.
The Fire Marshall Division focuses on fire safety, life safety, and
emergency preparedness program policy, coordination, inspection, and
oversight.
The Safety and Environmental Division focuses on occupational
health and safety, recycling, and environmental program policy,
coordination, inspection, and oversight.
Fire protection engineering design responsibilities have
transferred to the re-established Fire Protection Engineering Division
under the Director of Engineering.
This structure separates policy, oversight, and inspection from
design and implementation--providing a necessary check and balance
system and allowing concentration on project design and execution.
Agency wide, significant resources have been applied to the fire
safety, occupational health and safety programs. The AOC has
aggressively addressed fire safety concerns by dedicating resources to
design of systems, correction of specific deficiencies, renovation and
construction projects, and implementing National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) testing, inspection and maintenance programs. In
many cases, jurisdictions have redirected resources from customer
service to address fire safety issues, as a result, customer service
has suffered temporarily. Fiscal year 2002 will see continued emphasis
on fire safety as well as increased emphasis on occupational safety and
environmental program implementation which will further strain limited
existing resources.
Because safety is the AOC's top priority, the AOC is hiring now to
fill fiscal year 2002 safety related vacancies within Fire Marshal and
Safety and Environmental Divisions and across the jurisdictions. By
achieving fiscal year 2002 staffing levels as soon as possible, the AOC
will be better able to identify, address, and correct safety related
concerns as well as implement new safety related programs across the
Capitol complex.
Thirteen (13) fiscal year 2002 positions (9 jurisdictional, 3
within the Fire Marshal Division and one in the Safety and
Environmental Division) are being filled to better enable the AOC to
develop and implement fire, occupational, and environmental safety
programs and make necessary facility upgrades to comply with fire and
building codes.
In fiscal year 2002, thirty (30) projects totaling over $14.5
million are requested under the Life Safety Category to address
identified fire and/or occupational safety deficiencies across the
Capitol complex. An additional $362,000 is being requested (see:
Capitol Buildings Salaries and Expenses Operating Budget Life Safety
Operations and Maintenance section) to cover needed environmental
contractor services as well as increases in cost of fire safety and
occupational safety and health program management.
I. Fire Safety
The goals of the Fire Safety Program are to: (1) provide a fire
safe environment for workers and visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex;
(2) comply with BOCA 1999 and NFPA-101, 2000 Life Safety Codes wherever
possible, addressing specific historic issues by developing performance
based equivalencies when appropriate; and, (3) develop a complex-wide
emergency preparedness program in conjunction with the Capitol Police
and the District of Columbia.
Fire safety combines the aspects of prevention--minimizing clutter,
properly storing flammable materials, controlling flame and heat
producing devices, etc.--with protection--fire detection, fire
suppression, and egress.
The historic nature of many of the Capitol complex buildings
creates unique challenges in complying with modern building and fire
codes. The AOC has met these challenges aggressively and undertaken
extensive projects to bring our historic buildings into compliance with
the most current codes. The effort of meeting modern codes, not
required by the codes themselves unless major renovation is performed,
demonstrates Congress' leadership and commitment to fire safety. The
more significant projects will take years to complete because they
require creative design solutions and major building renovations. The
vast majority of this work has been contracted. The AOC has established
an Indefinite Duration Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with four
fire protection engineering consultant and design firms. As
requirements are identified, specific task orders for consultation and
design are written and issued quickly, avoiding lengthy individual
contracting efforts. Although significant progress has been made, the
amount of contract administration, design review, building and fire
code analysis, jurisdictional and customer coordination, construction
oversight, and debugging is overwhelming to the AOC's limited staff.
These aspects of work cannot be contracted. Additionally, fire alarm
systems must be tested on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annual,
and annual basis. All office moves, special events, modifications, and
renovation projects must be reviewed for fire and building code
compliance and a rigorous inspection and oversight process developed to
ensure the progress we are making is not lost as future modifications
and renovations are performed. The requested resources reflect these
needs.
The AOC also is requesting a new emergency preparedness
coordinator. This function is currently performed as a collateral duty
of the fire marshal and requires a dedicated effort to establish an
AOC-wide program to ensure we are able to respond to emergencies and to
coordinate with the U.S. Capitol Police and the District of Columbia
Fire & EMS Department.
Significant Capitol complex-wide accomplishments in the past year
include:
--NFPA compliant test, inspection, and maintenance program for
sprinkler and alarm systems implemented.
--Regular DC Fire & EMS Department pre-planning tours conducted.
--ADA fire alarm system upgrades designs completed.
--Egress studies completed for each building.
--General fire protection system description reports completed for
each building.
--Lighted exit signs installed in public areas of all buildings
(except isolated areas of Capitol with architectural and/or
access issues).
--Fire pull stations and alarm speakers operational.
--Fire safety master plan under development.
--IDIQ contract for fire protection engineering support awarded.
--Complex-wide Central Fire Protection Monitoring System in design
(50 percent).
--Task orders for egress improvement designs issued.
--Y2K fire alarm system upgrades complete.
--And, increased emphasis and attention to fire safety related
maintenance including correction of numerous deficiencies.
Other significant jurisdiction specific progress can be found in
attachment 1.
II. Occupational Health and Safety
The goals of the Occupational Health and Safety program are to: (1)
provide a safe and healthful environment for workers and visitors to
the U.S. Capitol complex, (2) comply with OSHA standards as required by
the Congressional Accountability Act, and (3) standardize safety
program implementation wherever possible.
To meet these goals, forty-one (41) safety programs must be revised
or developed, approved, and implemented. The development and
implementation of these programs began in fiscal year 2001 and will
continue through fiscal year 2004. The AOC has contracted with the
Public Health Service to draft AOC-wide safety program policies. This
effort includes research of regulations, drafting of policy, review of
proposed policy within the AOC, determining applicability of program
policies to each work site, and identification and resolution of
issues. As program policies are drafted, implementation needs will be
determined for each program. Decisions will be made regarding program
applicability (employees, work sites, and work practices) within each
jurisdiction, training needs will be identified, work site specific
operating procedures will be developed and record-keeping processes
will be implemented. Implementation will also include identification of
facilitators (e.g. supporting software) and procurement of equipment as
needed. The AOC's goal is to standardize implementation across
jurisdictions as much as possible, ensuring consistency while
minimizing required effort. The resource most needed for the
implementation effort is people.
To effectively implement these programs, the AOC must change
culture and thought processes about how work is accomplished. Change in
thinking is required at all levels within the organization. The ``get
the job done'' approach must be replaced by the ``get the job done--but
safety first and always'' approach. All work will have to be analyzed
for hazards and hazards mitigated prior to start of work. More people
will be required to perform some jobs (e.g. permit required confined
spaces require one person just to stand watch for the person in the
space). Implementation will require significant resources--not just in
the analysis and execution of work but training and record keeping
requirements will be extensive.
The Agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Public Health
Service (PHS) to provide safety, occupational health and industrial
hygiene support services as required. The agency uses PHS services to
supplement existing resources and to serve as a third party consultant
on safety, occupational health or industrial hygiene related issues.
The AOC also has an agreement with the Office of the Attending
Physician (OAP) to provide medical support. The OAP currently
coordinates physicals associated with the Medical Surveillance Plan and
provides consultation services as requested. As safety programs are
deployed, the number of employees enrolled in medical surveillance is
anticipated to increase, as is the cost.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request reflects resources required to
continue to develop and implement the safety programs (including
medical surveillance program expansion) while tracking regulatory
changes and maintaining the current level of safe practices and safety
services across the AOC.
Resources identified in the fiscal year 2002 budget include
increases in jurisdictional as well as the Safety and Environmental
Division permanent and contractor staffing, survey and analysis costs,
and general operating funds (see: Capitol Buildings Salaries and
Expenses Operating Budget Life Safety Operations and Maintenance
section).
Significant accomplishments in the past year include:
--Established Safety committees in all jurisdictions.
--Drafted Safety Policy statement and policies for Safety, Health,
and Environmental Council, and Jurisdiction Occupational Safety
and Health Committees.
--Drafted program policy for 7 safety programs: HAZCOM, PPE, confined
space, blood borne pathogens, asbestos, respiratory protection,
and fall protection.
--Completed complex-wide surveys for confined spaces and fall
protection.
--Completed Capitol building asbestos survey, began Dirksen and
Rayburn building asbestos surveys.
--Provided training numerous safety training courses to employees and
managers.
--Conducted job hazard analyses, personal protective equipment
assessments, equipment inspections, ergonomic surveys, safety
audits, annual asbestos surveys, and some mishap
investigations.
Daily support requirements keep the four safety people currently in
the Safety and Environmental Division fully employed. Existing staffing
levels within the Division and across the jurisdictions do not provide
resources to implement the forthcoming safety programs and therefore,
the AOC has begun action to hire now to achieve the fiscal year 2002
staffing levels as soon as possible.
III. Recycling
The goals of the recycling program are to: (1) provide recycling
opportunities across the Capitol complex; (2) provide high levels of
customer service; and, (3) minimize solid waste disposal.
The Safety and Environmental Division coordinates the Recycling
program, administers the contract for collection, and provides
oversight and consultation services. Additional emphasis was provided
to the AOC Recycling program in fiscal year 2001 by creation of a GS-13
Recycling Manager position to coordinate campus wide recycling effort.
Jurisdictional personnel are responsible for the daily coordination and
pick-up of recycle associated with their buildings.
The House Office Buildings is in the process of making significant
modifications to its Office Waste Recycling Program. A Recycling
Program Manager and Recycling Assistant have been with the program
since October and January, respectively, and a crew to remove
recyclables from the offices is in the process of being hired.
Currently, eight are on board and being trained; twelve additional
employees, including two supervisors, are planned to complete the
group. Their uniforms will clearly indicate that they are member of the
recycling team.
The modified program for the offices focuses on being more ``user
friendly'' so that participants may easily separate their recycling
into the prescribed categories and keep wet waste, such as food and
Styrofoam, out of the paper. Some of the planned changes include
updated brochures, staff flexibility in choosing container placement,
label and container color coding and training. Seminars describing the
changes have been conducted and implementation of the program has
begun.
During the recent moves, large quantities of high grade paper were
recycled, and binders, folders and other office supplies were collected
and provided for reuse. The House side of the Capitol will also follow
this program and are currently reviewing the possibility of having
separate crews for waste removal and office cleaning activities.
The Senate filled the Recycling Program Manager position in
November 2000. In response to a request from the Rules Committee, our
new staff member has been preparing a report assessing the current
program and reviewing options for improvement. As included in the 2001
Senate Appropriations Bill, a major goal is to develop a stronger
program that leads to less contamination, thereby reducing the amount
of material being landfilled and generating additional income for the
Senate. Conducting monthly training seminars to educate the staff on
how to recycle properly along with preparing short informational
recycling segments that may be broadcast by the Senate Recording Studio
on the Senate cable system is also planned.
PAPER RECYCLING SUMMARY TABLE, FISCAL YEAR 2000 (10/1/99-9/30/00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 Tons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bldg. 4 Amount
1 High 2 Mixed 3 Corrugated Contaminated \2\ Total/ earned
grade grade \1\ Newspaper board (No value) building
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RHOB............................................................... 31.481 110.484 128.905 1.233 825.616 1,097.719 $18,410
CHOB \1\........................................................... 9.905 41.558 41.710 0.895 645.688 739.756 6,000
HSOB \3\........................................................... ........ 162.308 2.560 2.850 522.095 689.813 7,850
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 41.386 314.350 173.175 4.978 1,993.399 2,527.288 32,260
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes all paper collected from the Capitol, House side.
\2\ Recyclables mixed with levels of unacceptable material (e.g. food, Styrofoam Containers) above amounts allowed under our GSA contract. Though no
funds are received for this category, our contractor does separate and recycle from 75 percent -90 percent of the material. The remainder is
landfilled at the contractor's expense.
\3\ Includes high grade paper collected from the Capitol, Senate side.
The General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the
recycling contract, credits the AOC with the amount earned from
recycling. In the past, funds received from GSA were deposited in the
U.S. Treasury. For fiscal year 2000, this procedure was continued for
the House Office Buildings; receipts attributed to the Senate Office
Buildings were deposited into a fund for the Senate Health and Fitness
Facility.
For more information on GSA's recycling program, refer to the
website: ncr.gsa.gov/recycle--click on ``recycling data for an
agency.'' Code for RHOB is 000501; for Cannon 000502; for Hart 011301.
IV. Environmental Safety
The goals of the environmental program are: (1) to provide a safe
and healthful environment for workers, visitors, and neighbors at the
U.S. Capitol complex; (2) to be in compliance with EPA and District of
Columbia standards as required by law; and, (3) to be a good steward of
the environment.
Focus by the Safety and Environmental Division has been on safety
related actions due to staffing limitations. The development of the
Environmental Program and the analysis and survey requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency laws and regulations has not begun due
to difficulties filling the environmental engineer vacancy--the demand
for these individuals is high and the AOC's inability to offer
relocation compensation further limits the candidate pool. Filling the
environmental engineer position remains a top priority as attention
must be given to environmental matters. Non-compliance with
Environmental laws and regulations can subject the Agency to citations
and monetary fines. Enforcement by the EPA and the District of Columbia
thus far has been limited. Announcement in June of 1999 of a response
deadline for submittal of a CERCLA Preliminary Assessment indicates
EPA's intention to begin a closer look at Capitol Hill Programs. A
baseline environmental survey conducted in 1999 identified numerous
program areas requiring review and development. Issues such as waste
water discharge permitting, Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plans, inventory of chemicals and storage areas, and
secondary containment issues were identified. Additional contractor
support money has been requested (see: Capitol Buildings Salaries and
Expenses Operating Budget Life Safety Operations and Maintenance
section) to begin the detailed program review and development
associated with all aspects of the Environmental Program.
Full funding is requested to ensure compliance with environmental
regulations. Traditionally, compliance with environmental regulations
has been the most significant cost aspect of meeting life, health, and
environmental safety needs. As programmatic requirements are defined
and future compliance needs made more clear, the AOC will request the
resources necessary to assure that the agency meets environmental
regulations.
V. Summary
To meet the AOC Fire Safety, Occupational Health and Safety,
Recycling, and Environmental goals, resources are required to develop
and implement programs and policies at the Agency and Jurisdictional
levels. As mentioned earlier, the AOC is in the process of hiring to
achieve needed fiscal year 2002 staffing levels as soon as possible.
Thirteen (13) positions (9 jurisdictional, 3 within the Fire Marshal
Division and one in the Safety and Environmental Division) are being
added to better enable the AOC to develop and implement fire,
occupational, and environmental safety programs and make necessary
facility upgrades to comply with fire and building codes. Thirty (30)
projects totaling over $14.5 million are requested under the Life
Safety Category to address identified fire and/or occupational safety
deficiencies across the Capitol Complex. An additional $362,000 is
being requested (see: Capitol Buildings Salaries and Expenses Operating
Budget Life Safety Operations and Maintenance section) to cover needed
environmental contractor services as well as increases in cost of fire
safety and occupational safety and health program management.
ATTACHMENT I--JURISDICTION SPECIFIC FIRE SAFETY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS
Senate Wide:
NFPA compliant inspection and maintenance of kitchen hood
suppression systems implemented.
Elevator fire service recall upgrades being worked as elevator
projects are performed.
ADA Fire alarm system upgrades underway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Installation complete Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell: \1\
Fire alarm system.................. 80 Construction in progress for remainder, 2001 completion.
Sprinkler system................... 80 Construction in progress for remainder, 2001 completion.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
Exit door panic hardware........... 95
Fire alarm electrical locks........ 95
Committee Room door swings......... 75 Doors to be fabricated.
Dirksen:
Fire alarm system.................. 85 Occupied areas to be complete in 2001. Construction on-going
through Jan 2003.
Sprinkler system................... 85 Occupied areas to be complete in 2001. Construction on-going
through Jan 2003.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
Exit door panic hardware........... 100
Fire alarm electrical locks........ 95
Committee Room door swings......... 90 Hardware on order.
Hart:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Interim control panel & duct smoke detectors have being
installed. New design in fiscal year 2001, construction in
fiscal year 2003. Sprinkler system 90 mechanical room design
& construction to be complete.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
Exit door panic hardware........... 100
Fire alarm electrical locks........ 80
9th floor door swings.............. 100 Corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revolving door designs completed, construction contract awarded.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BUILDINGS
LOC Wide:
New kitchen hood suppression systems installed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Installation complete Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson Building:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Tested. Certification scheduled May 2001.
Sprinkler system................... 95 Everywhere except Main Reading Room and other areas (to have
performance based analysis of smoke control and other
measures).
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100 Throughout building.
Elevator recall.................... 100 Programming in fiscal year 2001.
John Adams Building:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Tested. Certification scheduled for May 2001.
Sprinkler system................... 98 Telephone & electric closets remain.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 99 Entire building to be completed May 2001.
Elevator recall.................... 100 Programming in fiscal year 2001.
James Madison Building:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Testing and certification to be completed June 2001.
Sprinkler system................... 90 Task order issued for remainder design to be completed May
2001. Construction funds to be requested in fiscal year
2003.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 99 Entire building to be completed July 2001.
Elevator recall.................... 100 Operational.
Electric switchgear................ 25 Remaining 3 switchgears to be replaced end fiscal year 2001
and beginning fiscal year 2002.
U.S. CAPITOL:
Fire alarm system.................. 60 Systems in place are tested & certified. Remaining
installation on-going.
Sprinkler system................... 25 Construction documents scheduled October 2002.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 35 Main corridors & egress doors installed. Building-wide study
completed.
Elevator recall.................... 80 Installation on-going.
Egress Doors....................... 60 9 of 15 completed. Remaining designs completed. Construction
funds to be requested. Coordination with CVC project
required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS
House wide:
Omega sprinkler head replacement completed in all HOB.
Firefighter telephones installed and operational in all HOB.
New kitchen hood suppression systems installed (Cannon, Longworth,
Ford, and Rayburn pizza kitchen, remaining Rayburn kitchen installation
planned as part of renovation.)
Door fire rating survey completed, corrections underway.
Elevator fire service recall upgrades being worked as elevator
projects are performed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Installation complete Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannon: \1\
Fire alarm system.................. 95 Survey task order to be issued May 2001.
Sprinkler system................... 90 Design to be complete June 2001.
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
Longworth: \1\
Fire alarm system.................. 95 Basement & sub-basement installed as renovation are
performed.
Sprinkler system................... \2\ 90 Design task order issued for remainder.
Fire pump.......................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
Rayburn:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Smoke detectors installed and certified.
Sprinkler system................... 20 Garage, sub-basement, and portions of building covered,
remainder scheduled through 2002.
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
O'Neill (Intend to abandon occupancy in/
by fiscal year 2002):
Fire alarm system.................. ........ Existing system not compliant, scope review May 2001.
Sprinkler system................... 100
Exit signs......................... 100
Ford:
Fire alarm system.................. 100 Installed and certified.
Sprinkler system................... 95 Design task order issued for remainder (elevator shafts,
machine rooms, etc.); new fire pump test header installed.
Exit signs......................... 100 In public areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revolving door designs completed.
\2\ Over.
APPENDIX B--AOC HUMAN RESOURCES ACT OF 1995 ACHIEVEMENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Congress passed the AOC Human Resources Act of
1995 in the Fiscal Year 1995 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
Public Law 103-283, approved July 22, 1994. The law required that the
AOC develop a human resources management program consistent with modern
practices common to federal and private sector programs.
II. HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM FOCUS
The Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) has made the
following areas priorities: Customer service delivery; Program/policy
development; Service delivery systems re-engineering; and Personnel
action and operational processing simplification.
In order to accomplish these priorities, as well as the daily human
resource operational requirements, HRMD has, as a team, formed
relationships across branches and functions to address these new
challenges. The following information outlines HRMD's progress in the
last year and identifies new directions for the coming year.
III. PROGRAM GUIDANCE COMPLETED
AOC's Human Resources Management Division has dedicated this past
year to meeting the needs of AOC customers while providing timely,
customer-focused programs and services. Human Resources is a proactive
partner and resource in advancing the AOC mission of being an
innovative and efficient team committed to service excellence and to
preserving, maintaining and enhancing the national treasures entrusted
to our care.
During 2000, HRMD devoted time and resources to meeting its daily
operational goals, as well as its strategic goals, for improved
customer service delivery, development and retooling of programs and
policies, and re-engineering of program support services and personnel
action processing. Building upon the accomplishments of the previous
year, HRMD finished several projects for the agency and its employees
over the last year.
In the area of development of programs and policies, HRMD
accomplished the following:
Performance Communication and Evaluation System (PCES).--Developed
and implemented a new performance management system. HRMD rolled out
the implementation of the PCES by conducting training sessions on the
new system for all AOC non-bargaining unit employees. Through
supervisor and employee briefings, the plans are being implemented in
each jurisdiction. All jurisdictions will be under PCES by June, 2001.
In support of the new PCES, HRMD developed training objectives and
provided for an on-site course entitled Performance Coaching and
Counseling. The training was mandatory for all executives, managers,
supervisors, foremen and assistants who are PCES rating or reviewing
officials. The training was designed to assist participants in:
planning a successful PCES coaching and counseling session; confidently
selecting and exercising coaching and counseling skills; identifying
their personal conflict management style, alternate styles, and style
effect on others; using active listening and effective feedback skills
to resolve conflict and constructively motivate employees; and,
discussing overall AOC disciplinary procedures and knowing when and
where to go for assistance.
Discipline Process--Awarded a New Hearing Officer Contract.--In an
effort to eliminate concerns that individual hearing officers were
being hired specifically by the management structure at the AOC, HRMD
procured the services of an outside vendor that would provide a number
of highly qualified individuals to serve as hearing officials in
discipline appeals. The contractor will provide a pool of at least five
individuals to serve as hearing officials with the goal of adding yet
another measure of impartiality to ensure that all AOC employees are
given fair and just due process.
Awards Program.--A comprehensive awards program was established
with provisions for both honorary, monetary, and performance
recognition. Incorporating the agency's commitment to service
excellence, professionalism, creativity, and teamwork, AOC's program
recognizes performance, productivity, and exceptional employee
contributions and serves as an incentive system toward fulfilling our
mission. All employees were provided information about the new program
and received a copy of the new policy. Attendance by fellow AOC
employees has increased substantially at the quarterly service award
ceremonies. AOC employees are honored by the recognition and they have
expressed that they look forward to future ceremonies.
Transportation Benefit Program.--In January 2001, HRMD assumed
program responsibility and revamped the AOC Transportation Benefit
program. AOC employees can receive both a direct benefit and a pretax
benefit to help offset commuting expenses. The previous $21 Metrochek
and Bus Token benefit was increased to $44, and employees may elect to
exclude for federal and state taxes up to an additional $21 of their
gross income. Over 400 employees participate in the transportation
benefit program.
Employee Safety and Protection.--In collaboration with the AOC
Health and Safety Office, HRMD has been actively addressing employee
safety and protection in the workplace by assisting with the
development and implementation of Safety Committees within each
jurisdiction. We are also working with the Health & Safety Office to
develop program and policy guidance to address other health and safety
issues to further support AOC health and safety training initiatives.
Workers' Compensation Program.--HRMD provided assistance in
implementing the Architect's plan for making safety a top priority at
AOC. With a 77 percent hourly (blue collar) workforce, including trades
that traditionally have among the highest accident rates, HRMD
initiated an aggressive agenda to strategically work with senior
management and the Life and Safety Office to focus on cause and
prevention of work-related injuries and illnesses. Determined to
implement effective change, HRMD assisted management in developing a
plan of action for successfully integrating safety in AOC's daily work
activities. The plan includes:
--Analyzing injury trends and data to determine appropriate efforts
needed to effectively address the Department of Labor's five
year plan to reduce occurrences of injuries/illnesses and lost
production days.
--Developing new policies and procedures for using Safety Committees
in the jurisdictions to support the advancement of safety,
health, and environmental programs. This includes recognizing
and reducing hazards in the workplace and performing mishap
investigations, as well as development of a back safety
awareness program that includes training on proper lifting
techniques.
--Review of the current AOC Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
policies and procedures to ensure they are being properly
implemented within OSHA's health and safety standards. We
recommended written guidelines to managers and supervisors on
enforcing these procedures and an internal system for properly
evaluating the program AOC-wide.
HRMD will continue to develop specific initiatives, in conjunction
with the AOC Health and Safety Office and with the Attending
Physician's Office, to systematically address each aspect of workers'
compensation, to provide for a proactive return to work program,
improved approaches to deal with repetitive injuries, and to
aggressively pursue cases of potential fraudulent claims. Additional
work was completed by developing new methods to perform job safety
analysis of AOC work stations, targeting areas with the highest
incident rates, and providing statistical injury data reports to mid-
level managers and front-line supervisors to identify and evaluate
injury trends in the AOC. Increased support was provided to front-line
supervisors in the safety, health and workers' compensation process by
providing comprehensive written guidelines to initiate aggressive
action to investigate possible fraudulent claims.
Throughout 2000, HRMD completed a review of 400 workers'
compensation claims, implemented 18 corrective actions, returned 106
employees to work in limited duty work assignments, and returned 23
employees to full duty from the short-term periodic rolls. The OWCP
staff conducted briefings for managers, supervisors and field
coordinators on the proper administration of the Federal Employees
Compensation Act.
Premium Conversion for FEHB.--In the Fall of 2000, the Architect
received approval from the Office of Personnel Management to implement
the federal government's pre-tax option for Federal Health Benefits
premiums. HR Bulletin 2000-3 was mailed to all employees announcing
this new benefit option which reduces their taxable income and
increases their net pay.
Pilot Alternative Workplace Program.--As part of the agency's
efforts to assist employees in managing their work and personal life
activities, HRMD implemented a pilot alternative workplace program.
This flexibility can permit managers or employees, who are experiencing
medical difficulties, to work at their place of residence during a
defined work period. The pilot policy contains specific eligibility
criteria and procedures for managers and employees alike to follow
during the alternative workplace assignment.
AOC HR Manual.--During the past year, the Human Resources
Management Division completed its review of HR policies, procedures,
guides and memorandum and issued the first Human Resources Manual for
all managers and supervisors. The manual contains all current and
relevant policy and guidance helpful in managing the agency's human
resources. As part of its efforts to continue its outreach efforts,
HRMD attended jurisdictional supervisor meetings and distributed the
manuals to each supervisor. In addition, all AOC employees received a
memo from the Architect announcing the HR manual and letting them know
that the policies and procedures are available for their use.
Payroll Services.--As part of HRMD's continuous improvement
initiatives and commitment to excellence in customer service delivery,
a payroll services group was established to increase customer
satisfaction, provide direct responsive problem resolution, and
identify system/process procedures impacting AOC's ability to pay all
employees accurately and timely. The payroll services group has begun
administrative preparation for the implementation of an automated
System for Time and Attendance (STAR).
Staffing and Recruitment.--Due to the high volume of staffing and
recruiting work in the AOC, HRMD implemented streamlined procedures for
the Career Staffing Policy in July 2000. The changes provided greater
efficiency in hiring procedures. HRMD also streamlined audit procedures
for accretion of duties promotions based on the nature of the action.
Customer Communications.--As part of HRMD's continuous improvement
initiatives and commitment to excellence in customer service delivery,
HR developed a Personnel Action Status Report to inform customers of HR
progress towards completing requested actions. To further improve
communications on the status of personnel actions, the HR staff also
initiated a series of regular meetings with Jurisdictional Managers to
discuss the on-going status of actions in-process. During these
meetings management identifies their staffing priorities. In turn, HR
provides possible recruitment strategies that will result in the timely
filling of vacancies and the processing of routine staffing actions.
Retirement and Benefits Form Automation.--HRMD completed an upgrade
in the processing of retirement and benefits forms. As part of the
counseling process, staff can better assist employees by completing
forms on-line and presenting various benefit options using computer
modules that help employees make better decisions about their financial
future.
Benefits Information via Web.--HRMD established a computer site for
employees to use in accessing various federal benefits related web
sites. Information is readily accessible and provides employees with
immediate access to their benefits information to help them make more
informed decisions. Future plans include providing electronic kiosks to
jurisdictions whose workforce does not regularly use a computer as part
of their daily work life.
Employee Personal Page.--HRMD offered employees the opportunity to
view their personal payroll and benefits-related information via an
employee's personal web page. Information for current pay periods, as
well as previous pay periods, is available via computer. Federal tax
documents, e.g. W-2, are also available for the past two tax years.
FEGLI Open Season.--HRMD implemented an open season enrollment for
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance. This opportunity was
communicated to all employees in the Spring of 1999 with more than 300
employees either enrolling or increasing their life insurance coverage
which became effective April, 2000.
Child Equity Implementation.--Implemented procedures for processing
court orders to ensure that children of employees are covered under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits program. This new requirement makes
mandatory self and family coverage for FEHB-eligible employees who do
not comply with a court or administrative order to provide health
benefits for their children.
Human Resources Newsletter.--Publishing a Human Resources
Newsletter, Employee Matters, as part of the AOC Shoptalk. The
newsletter provides AOC employees with current Human Resources
information, program initiatives, upcoming events, training
information, etc.
CFC Campaign.--This year's successful campaign reflected a 4
percent increase in giving and a 44 percent increase in participation.
Seventy-three AOC employees contributed $18,765.32, coming very close
to the Agency goal of $18,785.10.
Employee Guidance.--Additional communication efforts resulted in
the following:
--Issuance of the 2000-2001 Adverse Weather Policy to advise
employees of procedures for reporting to work during an adverse
weather emergency.
--A ``Tools of the Trade on Work and Leave Status During Adverse
Weather Emergencies'' to provide guidance on an employee's work
and leave status during adverse weather emergencies in the
Washington, DC area.
--Issuance of the brochure ``Internal Investigation Interviews'' to
inform employees of their role in an official Agency
investigation.
--Issuance of the Administrative Hearing Guide for AOC employees to
inform employees of the process and procedures for conducting
disciplinary hearings.
Training and Employee Development.--In the training and employee
development area, HRMD approved and processed approximately 5,479
individual training requests. Of the approximately 93 training
opportunities offered to employees during the year, 62 courses
supported the competencies (i.e. communication skills, interpersonal
skills, basic leadership skills, self-direction, strategic planning,
program management, advanced leadership skills, critical thinking
skills, strategic vision, and external awareness) identified in the AOC
Leadership Development Program. Following are some of the actual
courses offered: Coaching Skills For Managers and Supervisors; Team
Building and Problem Solving; Analyzing and Resolving Conflict;
Custodial and Laborer Supervisory Training; Effective Communication;
How to Plan and Conduct Effective Meetings. In addition to supervisory
training, safety training focused on topics such as: asbestos; truck
lift safety; confined space; personal protective equipment; blood borne
pathogens; fall protection. Adult literacy, as well as various
technical training and computer training opportunities, also were
offered.
Enhancing Supervisory Skills Workshop.--With the assistance of a
training consultant, we developed and administered this workshop for
all AOC supervisors. The mandatory three-day training session addressed
numerous topics with a focus on refreshing and enhancing supervisory
skills. This workshop was the first of what will be a series of
training opportunities aimed at improving the management and
supervisory skills of AOC executives, managers, supervisors, foremen
and assistant foremen. Major components of this workshop included
segments to: enhance communications with employees; provide basic
skills and the tools to effectively and promptly address conduct and
discipline issues; address methods for providing positive reinforcement
to staff; and, allowed an open discussion and review of pressing
problems/issues. Additional supervisory core courses were also offered:
Quality Assurance for Supervisors; Sexual Harassment; EEO; and Violence
in the Workplace.
Architect's Mobility Program (AMP).--AOC's AMP program was designed
to provide career growth opportunities for employees in lower-graded,
career-limiting positions. Based on a competitive process, 11 AOC
employees were selected to begin the program in fiscal year 2000. Of
those participating, two carpentry helper trainees have been promoted
from WG-2 to WG-5; one electrical helper trainee was promoted from WG-2
to WG-5; and, one painter helper trainee was promoted from WG-2 to WG-
5.
Organizational Management and Analysis.--From an organizational
perspective, HRMD managed the reorganization process for the following:
--The Office of the Executive Officer was reorganized to provide an
agency-wide focus on safety, occupational health, and fire
protection. A major aspect of the AOC's strategy is to staff
positions in each major organization to coordinate
jurisdictional implementation of the various safety and fire
protection initiatives.
--U.S. Senate Restaurants were reorganized to streamline business
operations by combining a number of minimally staffed
organizational entities and to provide more clarity in
reporting relationships between employees, supervisors, and
management.
Records Management.--HRMD completed its records retention schedule
regarding the information AOC organizations currently maintain about
the employment and conduct of individual employees. Individual
supervisors and managers may find it convenient to maintain unofficial
personnel records containing information about their employees for
purposes of initiating personnel actions, tracking leave usage, and
recommending discipline. The information maintained might duplicate
some of that in the employee's Official Personnel Folder, but may
include copies of additional material such as employee's counseling,
incident reports, and supervisory notes. In order to provide
consistency in the content and manner in which employee information is
kept, HRMD developed guidelines to govern what documentation may and
may not be maintained, as well as general information on employees'
rights to review.
IV. CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES INITIATIVES
The following is a brief summary of current HRMD initiatives:
Leave Administration.--Guidance and instructions being used by the
various jurisdictions are being collected in an effort to assess how
leave is administered across the AOC. We plan to develop standard
policies and procedures for handling the various aspects of leave
administration including:
--Process for requesting and approving leave (annual, sick, without
pay, etc.).
--Process for annotating and documenting tardiness.
--Process for annotating, documenting and initiating action to
address AWOL situations.
Conduct and Discipline Policy.--HRMD is reviewing the current
conduct and discipline policy in an effort to streamline the processing
of disciplinary actions to ensure that AOC employees are afforded due
process in a timely manner. HRMD will look into the appropriate
delegation of authority levels as well as developing a more
comprehensive table of penalties guide.
A Comprehensive Wage and Pay Administration and Hours of Duty
Policy.--In addition to current work efforts on the AOC's Pay
Flexibilities Policy, HRMD is developing a more uniform and
comprehensive way of addressing wage and pay matters, to cover holiday
pay, overtime, tours of duty, etc. This effort will standardize pay
administration and work scheduling across the agency and provide clear
operating guidelines for AOC supervisors to follow.
Employee Handbook.--As a follow to the HR Manual provided for all
AOC managers and supervisors, AOC employees, both current and incoming,
will soon receive a comprehensive handbook outlining employee
responsibilities, benefit programs and employment related information,
etc.
Customer Communications.--HRMD's Personnel Action Status Report is
now available for all users of the AOC computer network. Access has
been provided to jurisdictional personnel to read and print information
concerning personnel actions in-process. To further improve
communications on the status of personnel actions, the HR staff also
conduct regular meetings with Jurisdictional Managers to discuss the
on-going status of actions in-process. During these meetings management
identifies their staffing priorities. In turn, HR provides possible
recruitment strategies that will result in the timely filling of
vacancies and the processing of routine staffing actions.
Payroll Services.--The newly formed Payroll Services Group is
preparing for the implementation of the Automated System for Time and
Attendance (STAR). A cross jurisdictional work group has formed and is
benchmarking other federal organizations who have completed the
transition. Implementation of the web based time and attendance system
is anticipated in the next several months.
Organizational Management Analysis.--HRMD is currently managing the
reorganization process for the following:
--Finalizing the reorganization of the functions reporting to the
Executive Officer for Facilities Management. This
organization's focus has been broadened and redirected to place
greater emphasis on facilities management along with safety,
occupational health, fire prevention, and quality assurance.
--House Office Buildings, Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Division,
and Pipefitting--Plumbing Division have been combined to create
a new Mechanical Systems Division. The basis for the merger is
the elimination of duplicate workload and streamlining of
processes, such as maintaining two inventory processes and
duplication of tools and equipment. Further, the merger
combines single trade functions to create maintenance mechanics
performing multiple trades work.
--Human Resources Management Information System--Based on program and
management needs, research is needed to actively pursue
modernization of HR information management systems. The lack of
an automated system results in very labor intensive efforts on
behalf of Agency managers, administrative staff, the HR staff,
and the Information Resources Management staff in completing
day-to-day business transactions. An automated system would not
only greatly reduce the necessary paperwork, but would also
reduce the processing time for personnel actions and would
facilitate generation of necessary Agency and Oversight
Committees' reports. Such a system would be able to provide
for: on-demand, accurate, management reports for program
analysis; processing of personnel actions; personnel forms;
position classification process; simple, protected, employee
access to their personal pay, benefits, retirement, insurance,
and other employment related information.
Our organizational goal is to be more responsive in meeting the
needs of our AOC customers, and provide timely, cost-effective HR
services. We envision Human Resources as a proactive partner and
resource in advancing the AOC mission of being an innovative and
efficient team dedicated to service excellence and to preserving,
maintaining and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.
APPENDIX C--INITIATIVES FOR SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Architect of the Capitol, through its jurisdictional
superintendents' operations, has been providing ongoing support for the
U.S. Capitol Police by installing power, conduit, electric locks and
oversight of the USCP electrical contractors. This work will continue
until the projected project completion April 1, 2002. To facilitate and
improve this oversight, as well as to improve coordination on the many
security issues related to infrastructure projects, the AOC appointed a
Security Officer, under direction of the Assistant Architect of the
Capitol, to provide coordination, liaison and technical guidance to the
AOC relating to the USCP security enhancements and ongoing security
projects planned or in progress for the Capitol complex.
In fiscal year 2001, contracts were issued for the installation of
security bollards and vehicle barriers to provide security for the U.S.
Senate Office Buildings and staff parking areas, as well as the Capitol
Square project to install security bollards and vehicle barriers around
the entire U.S. Capitol grounds, to prevent unauthorized vehicular
access to the grounds.
I. Senate Perimeter Security
The Senate Perimeter Security project contract was awarded in
November 2000, with work commencing in March 2001. This project
provides for the installation of security barriers, bollards, security
booths and electronic security systems to provide a secure area for
parking on C Street from New Jersey Ave NW to 2nd Street NE, and on
Delaware Avenue from Constitution Avenue to D Street. The work,
performed in four phases, is projected for completion in January 2002.
II. Portal Security Installation
Based on the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, (Public Law 105-277) security screening
equipment and support security enhancement systems for USCP personnel
were planned for installation at all portals used by staff and the
public. To support this effort, egress studies were performed to
identify safety issues and the 48 portals identified as requiring
security systems enhancements. As of March 6, 2001, 25 portals have
been cleared for installation and work has commenced. AOC is supporting
the installation of infrastructure (conduit, power, floor boxes) for
this project.
III. Infrastructure Installation Support
The USCP have an extensive security enhancement installation
project in progress. This consists in part of the installation of
intrusion alarms on building perimeters, card access on restricted
areas, and video assessment. The AOC is providing support for these
installations throughout the Capitol complex. This support consists of
conduit, power, door hardware and lock installation, and support is
provided as required to support the USCP and/or their security or
electrical contractor.
IV. Capitol Square Security
The Capitol Square Security project contract was awarded March 2001
and work has commenced. This project provides for the installation of
security barriers, bollards and electronic security systems to provide
a secure area within the Capitol Grounds from 1st Street NW/SW, 1st
Street NE/SE, North Drive, and South Drive.
APPENDIX D--INITIATIVES REGARDING THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
INTRODUCTION
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) affords all AOC
employees a process by which to present allegations, including issues
of unlawful discrimination and retaliation, to the Office of Compliance
(OC). After the mediation period ends, employees may go directly to
federal district court without exhausting any administrative remedies.
In addition, in safety and health and other cases, the law gives the OC
General Counsel investigatory powers, including the ongoing
responsibility to conduct periodic, complex-wide inspections to report
on work practices and working conditions in facilities under the
jurisdiction of the AOC.
I. Employment Rights Cases
An employee who wants to charge the AOC with violations of the CAA
must first request counseling and mediation from the Office of
Compliance. Anyone who wishes to file such requests need not detail, or
prove, any allegations during the formal counseling, mediation, or
before initiating formal litigation. At mediation, the AOC must respond
to any matters, including discrimination, retaliation issues, or other
workplace matters, regardless of the legal merits of claims. The CAA
and the OC procedural rules require that all mediation and formal
hearing proceedings are strictly confidential.
After the mediation period, the employee or a designated
representative may initiate the litigation process by filing a formal
complaint in the Office of Compliance or a civil action in federal
district court. (The CAA requires that mediations and any formal
complaint cases before an OC hearing officer are to be kept
confidential. By contrast, CAA civil actions in federal court, which
are subject to court rules, are generally public proceedings.)
Currently, active cases include four (4) federal appeals and 17
district court cases. In the two (2) appeals court cases and the 22
district court cases in which courts have ruled, the courts' decisions
have been in favor of the AOC, including dismissals or withdrawals of
employee allegations.
II. Occupational Safety and Health Provisions of the CAA
Section 215 of the CAA directs the OC General Counsel to inspect
any area or activity within the jurisdiction of employing offices,
including all of the facilities within the AOC's jurisdiction with
respect to compliance with occupational safety and health (OSH)
standards. In the four years since the enactment of the CAA, the Office
of Compliance has not issued occupational safety and health (OSH)
standards, as directed by the law.
The OC General Counsel conducts inspections of all such locations
at least once every Congress, but also at any time when an employee or
an employee representative requests an inspection. These requested
inspections may be narrowly focused on one location or activity or
involve facilities and activities across Capitol Hill, such as the
ongoing fire safety inspections of buildings under AOC jurisdiction,
which are mentioned in Appendix A.
The CAA empowers the General Counsel to issue a citation that
alleges that a violation of Section 215 of the CAA has occurred. The
issuance of an OC citation by itself does not establish that a
violation of safety and health standards has in fact occurred. To do
that, the General Counsel must issue a complaint against the AOC. An
independent hearing officer would then hear the complaint allegations.
At that time the OC General Counsel and the AOC would each present
their positions as to what standards apply and whether the facilities
or work practices at issue are (or are not) in compliance with the
applicable standards. The hearing officer would issue a decision, which
may be appealed to the OC Board of Directors, with review by the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
To date, the General Counsel has not issued any complaints
concerning any safety and health issue. In addition, when the General
Counsel has issued citations, the AOC has responded promptly to correct
the condition or, if an immediate correction is not feasible, to
outline a plan of action to achieve a correction within a reasonable
period.
In December 2000, the OC General Counsel reported on the periodic
inspections of the Capitol Hill complex and other facilities,
concentrating on fire safety issues. The report notes significant
improvements and reports additional findings that may need to be
addressed. In addition, during calendar year 2000, ten (10) requests
for inspection were filed by employees or unions. In all of these
cases, the AOC worked closely with the OC General Counsel to address
any and all safety and health issues that called for a response.
In those cases where additional funds are required to address
safety and health issues, the AOC develops plans of correction for the
future and requests the necessary funds to correct the problems. For
example, where a citation issued concerning the structural aspects of
the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels, the AOC notified the OC of the
immediate reduction in the time that employees spend in the area, the
retention of a structural engineering firm to develop repair
procedures, and of budget requests for the resources needed for a
permanent fix. Similarly, in the area of fire safety, the AOC has
developed a multi-faceted plan of action to address the issues that the
Office of Compliance highlighted in their reports during the last 12
months. See Appendix A for more detail on these measures to enhance
fire safety.
APPENDIX E--INITIATIVES IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Provisions under the Congressional Accountability Act, Public Law
104-1 (CAA), afford all eligible Architect of the Capitol (AOC)
employees the right to choose an exclusive representative to engage in
collective bargaining with the AOC. Since the CAA's passage, eight
different groups of AOC employees have exercised this right. Six unions
represent laborers, custodians, nonskilled workers and Davis Bacon
employees in various trades.
I. Formation of Bargaining Units
In August 1997, the first bargaining unit at the AOC was
established. Approximately 600 laborers, custodians and other
occupations were organized by AFSCME Council 26, Local 626, which was
certified by the Office of Compliance (OC) as the first exclusive
bargaining agent for AOC employees.
In November 1998, AFSCME Council 26, Local 626 was certified by the
Office of Compliance as the exclusive representative for a unit of
production and maintenance employees at the United States Botanic
Garden.
On January 13, 1999, Plumbers Local Union No. 5, United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices et al. was certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent, by the Office of Compliance, for a unit of plumbers
employed by the AOC's Construction Management Division.
On August 17, 1999, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 26 was certified by the Office of Compliance as the
exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of electricians employed by the
AOC's Construction Management Division.
On October 14, 1999, AFSCME Council 26, Local 626 was certified by
the Office of Compliance as the exclusive representative of laborers
and coal loaders at the Capitol Power Plant. This is an addition to the
existing unit consisting of other laborers and custodial workers in the
House and Senate Office Buildings and the Capitol.
On October 16, 1999, Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local Union No. 100 was certified by the Office of
Compliance as the exclusive representative of sheet metal workers
employed by the Construction Management Division of the AOC.
On November 15, 1999, the Washington, D.C. Regional Council of
Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America was
certified by the Office of Compliance as the exclusive representative
of carpenters employed by the Construction Management Division of the
AOC.
On May 12, 2000, the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local No. 1,
MD, VA & DC (Stonemasons Local No. 1) was certified by the Office of
Compliance as the exclusive representative of all stonemasons who are
paid in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, and who are employed by
the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.
II. Union Negotiations (Impact Bargaining)
During the past four years, the AOC and its labor unions have
negotiated twenty-one (21) Memoranda of Understanding, covering the
following subjects: Time Clocks for Capitol Building Employees;
Official Time and the Number of Designated Union Officials for the
House, Senate and Capitol Bargaining Unit; Official Time and the Number
of Designated Union Officials for the U. S. Botanic Gardens; Dues
Deduction; Architect's Mobility Program; Overtime Assignments at the
U.S. Botanic Gardens; Ground Rules for Master Contract Negotiations
(AFSCME, IBEW Local 26 and Plumbers Local Union No. 5); Reassignments
for House, Senate and Capitol Personnel; Buy-Out, Early Retirement;
Transfer of Custodial Employees; Uniforms for U.S. Botanic Garden
Employees; Uniforms for House Office Building Employees; Uniforms for
Senate Office Building Employees; House Shift Changes; Safety Shoes;
Transit Subsidy; Hiring Temporary Recycling Workers; and
Reorganization--U.S. Botanic Gardens 2001.
III. Labor Relations Meetings and Negotiations
The AOC has initiated or participated in labor-management meetings
on the average of three to four times per month, during the past year,
to discuss various issues including performance evaluations, back pay,
health and safety, pension benefits for employees paid at the Davis-
Bacon prevailing rate and who work with the AOC's Construction
Management Division, discipline, affirmative employment and grievance
procedures. On June 1, 2000, the Architect of the Capitol held its
third reception for all of the labor unions representing AOC employees,
in a continuing effort to forge more positive working relationships
with the unions.
IV. Master Contract Negotiations
Negotiations have commenced with all but two \1\ of the Unions for
an initial comprehensive Collective Bargaining Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local No. 1, MD, VA & DC,
and the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No.
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Collective bargaining between AFSCME Local 626 and the AOC began on
July 21, 1999, to negotiate the first comprehensive master
contract agreement between the AOC and a labor organization.
Negotiations were postponed during the pending decision of a
Negotiability Appeal. Three to four issues remain for
completion of the contract.
--The AOC and Plumbers Local No. 5 began negotiations, for ground
rules and a collective bargaining agreement, in November 2000.
To date, the AOC and Plumbers Local No. 5 have met to negotiate
five times, and have reached agreement on several key issues.
--The AOC and IBEW Local 26 began negotiations, for ground rules and
a collective bargaining agreement, in September 2000. The
parties have held nine bargaining sessions and continue to
negotiate for an initial contract.
--The AOC and the Council of Carpenters held their first negotiation
meeting on June 21, 2000. The AOC and the Union have met three
times since the initial June meeting.
--Local Union No. 100, Sheet Metal Workers, submitted its initial
proposal for a collective bargaining agreement to the AOC. The
AOC, in turn, forwarded a response to the Union's proposal. A
meeting was held with Union representatives on March 9, 2000,
to discuss preliminary issues. No bargaining sessions have been
scheduled.
--To date, no proposal has been received from the Bricklayers &
Allied Craftworkers for an initial contract.
V. Allegations of Unfair Labor Practices
During the past four years, 56 unfair labor practice charges were
filed by various organizations representing AOC employees. To date,
four unfair labor practice charges were filed against the various
unions, on behalf of the AOC. Of the total unfair labor practice
charges 29 were withdrawn, of which 12 were withdrawn based on
settlements. One charge is still pending. Further, 30 of the unfair
labor practice charges were ultimately dismissed due to either lack of
basis, or insufficiency of evidence.
VI. Other Issues of Importance
Over the past year, the Office of Compliance has considered and
decided a Negotiability Appeal filed by AFSCME Local 626, concerning a
Union proposal that the AOC was required to compensate employees for
back pay, as authorized by an arbitrator in a grievance arbitration
proceeding. The AOC contended that the proposal was nonnegotiable since
the Back Pay Act does not include the AOC in its coverage, and no other
similar provision in the Congressional Accountability Act would require
the AOC to provide back pay.
The Office of Compliance dismissed the Appeal, finding that the
payment of such compensatory awards would be included as part of the
Settlement and Judgement Fund administered by the Office of Compliance,
pursuant to Section 415(b) of the CAA.
The AOC is establishing an independent Office of Labor Relations &
Collective Bargaining to report directly to the Architect.
In February 2001, AFSCME Local 626 elected new officials and
members to its Executive Board.
Discussions are underway between AFSCME Local 626 and the AOC
regarding the agency's affirmative employment program.
Quarterly updates on labor relations issues are reported in the
AOC's ``Shop Talk'' publication.
APPENDIX F--STATUS OF SELECTED CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Dirksen Senate Office Building Infrastructure Project
This project involves the modernization of the building
infrastructure systems in the Dirksen Senate Office Building while the
structure continues to be occupied in all areas except those directly
affected by carefully staged and preplanned construction activity.
The project includes a new electrical distribution system that will
improve power quality, capacity and reliability; installation of a new
telecommunications system; replacement and upgrade of the existing
emergency generator; new cable trays and data rooms to facilitate
recabling of the building; replacement of the heating, ventilation and
air conditioning systems from the ground through the seventh floor to
provide increased operating efficiency, controllability and
reliability; new energy efficient lighting and ceiling systems in the
office spaces as well as the corridors to provide improved lighting
with decreased energy consumption; modern modular partition walls for
the offices providing increased efficiencies in space layouts and
enhanced appearance; expansion of the existing sprinkler system to
provide building-wide sprinklered protection, including replacement of
the fire pump for increased safety, property protection and code
compliance. Additionally, the fire alarm system will be completed
throughout the facility, the center core public bathrooms will be
modernized to incorporate current ADA requirements, and revisions are
being made to the wiring of the Committee Rooms to meet criteria
established by the U.S. Capitol Police Physical Security Division.
The center core public restrooms on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
floors have been completed and are now ADA compliant; the center core
restrooms on the 1st and 2nd floors are scheduled to be completed and
open to the public on July 1, 2001.
Phase I of the project will modernize the main mechanical and
electrical systems located on the 7th and sub-basement floor levels.
This phase will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2003. Phase II
construction was planned in 14 separate and sequential 10-week phases,
of which we are currently in the 12th phase. This phase of the project
is on track to completion, on time and on budget, by the end of the
year (December 2001). All communication/data closets have been
completed and are becoming fully functional as Phase II construction
proceeds through the building.
Senate Perimeter Security Project
Work is already complete on the first of four phases of
construction for the Senate Perimeter Security project. The purpose of
this project is to improve both the security and appearance of areas
around the Senate office buildings. Unsightly concrete structures--
which were intended to be temporary security measures when put into
place more than a decade ago--will be replaced by more appropriate and
effective permanent features. Work began in February 2001 and the
project is expected to be completed during the winter of 2001/2002.
Phase II of this project began April 30 and should conclude by July 30.
This phase will provide a new lift gate, protective bollards, vehicle
barrier and planter at the intersection of Delaware Avenue and D
Street. Phase III will be centered at Delaware and Constitution, 2nd
and C Street, NE. Phase IV will center on Delaware and C Street, 1st
and C Street, on both the east and west sides. The staging area for the
entire project is the fenced area along D Street.
At the same time, similar and complementary work is commencing on
the Capitol Square Perimeter Project on the grounds immediately
surrounding the U.S. Capitol. This work will be in full activity about
the time Phase II of the Senate Perimeter Security Project concludes.
The staging area for this project, delineated by fencing that closely
resembles the fencing used along D Street, is located on the West Lawn
of the Capitol near the northwest corner of the Senate Extension. The
Capitol Square project will take about two years to conclude, except
for the portion of the project affected by construction of the Capitol
Visitor Center, expected to be completed in 2005.
U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory Renovation
The contract for the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden
Conservatory was awarded to The Clark Construction Group, Inc., of
Bethesda, Maryland, in September 1998. The company was issued a Notice
to Proceed in the same month and extensive work presently underway is
clearly visible to passers-by. The renovation and reconstruction of the
1933 Conservatory will totally replace and modernize its building
systems while retaining its architectural character. The initial award
is for the renovation of the structure (including the interior
landscapes) and installation of water treatment, security and
environmental control systems.
The staff of the U.S. Botanic Garden will install the plant
exhibits in each house of the Conservatory. The Conservatory will be
completed this year and planting for a public re-opening will commence
as soon as construction work is sufficiently complete to allow
planting. Upon opening, Members and the public will experience a young
garden and have the opportunity to see it reach maturity in coming
years, becoming more lush and beautiful with each passing season.
Work on the adjacent National Garden, unique because of its private
funding, is anticipated to begin in earnest this winter.
Library of Congress Book Storage Modules
Work is nearing completion on the first of a series of book storage
modules to be built for the Library of Congress on 100 acres of land at
Ft. Meade, Maryland, under jurisdiction of the Architect. The contract
for construction of LOC Book Storage Module 1 and an adjacent office
component, as well as for initial site preparation and development
work, was awarded on April 12, 1999. The first storage module (of an
anticipated total of 13) is 8,000 square feet, and the office component
is 5,000 square feet exclusive of mechanical equipment space.
Construction began August 3, 1999 and is expected to be completed this
summer. Future modules, not tied to additional office components, may
be larger in size.
Capitol Power Plant Modernization
The request to modify the fiscal year 2002 Budget for the Capitol
Power Plant was required as the first phase of the West Refrigeration
Plant Expansion, that is necessary to support the future cooling needs
of the Capitol complex and replace outdated and worn-out equipment.
This project must start in spring, 2002, to keep the West Refrigeration
Plant Expansion on schedule. If the project does not begin in a timely
fashion, an adequate supply of chilled water cannot be provided.
The West Refrigeration Plant Expansion's (WRP) schedule, and future
budget request, are summarized as follows: The design is currently at
65 percent completion, with final construction documents and cost
estimates on schedule to be complete in September 2001. Careful
consideration has been given to the architectural design of the WRP
Expansion to ensure consistency with the Legacy Plan. The architectural
design, site improvements, and security enhancements are progressing
with sensitivity to the residential areas to the north and east,
monumental buildings to north and west, and the industrial/commercial
buildings to the south. The 65 percent design cost estimate for the WRP
Expansion (including building expansion, 12,000 tons of chiller
capacity installation, pumping auxiliaries, cooling towers, controls,
architectural treatment, site improvements and security enhancement) is
$69,200,000, which will be reflected in the 2003 budget request. Future
budget requests planned for additional chiller capacity in 6,000 ton
increments are $8,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, $9,200,000 in fiscal
year 2008 and $8,200,000 in fiscal year 2010. It is critical that this
project stay on schedule to meet the load demand of the Capitol
complex.
APPENDIX G--FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has initiated a project to
implement a new financial management system and to integrate the system
with other AOC program and administrative systems. The project is
referred to as the Financial Management System (FMS) Project. The
successful implementation of FMS is a critical goal for the AOC. The
new system will provide the AOC with a financial system that is
auditable, accurate, timely, compliant with federal standards, and
easily integrated with other systems. In order to lower the risk of
implementing a new financial system, the FMS implementation will be
performed in a phased approach. FMS will be implemented in five phases
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Funding
No. Description Production Date Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Implement the General 10/1/2000............ \1\ $1,200,000
Ledger
2Implement the Budget 03/1/2002............ \1\ 1,475,000
Execution, Purchasing, \2\ 1,356,000
Accounts Payable and
Disbursement modules
3Implement the Contracting 10/1/2002............ \2\ 720,000
Procurement system
4Implement the Fixed Assets 10/1/2003............ \2\ 671,000
module
5Implement an Inventory 10/1/2003............ \3\ 972,000
System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded.
\2\ Unfunded.
\3\ Unfunded (estimate).
Phase 1 of the FMS project was successfully implemented on schedule
and within budget on October 1, 2000. Phase 1 implemented the Standard
General Ledger for the AOC. The AOC is currently working towards the
implementation of Phase 2 which is scheduled for production operations
of March 1, 2002. Phase 2 will implement the remaining modules of the
base system and eliminate all modules of the old system (CAS) except
for the inventory module.
A staff of five systems accountants was hired to implement FMS.
This is the absolute minimum staff required to implement FMS over a
multi-year period in a phased approach. The implementation of phase 1
has also resulted in the hiring of two additional accountants in the
Accounting Office to maintain the general ledger. As additional phases
of FMS are implemented, the AOC will need to address additional
staffing requirements.
II. INTRODUCTION
The AOC is pursuing the upgrading and integration of information
systems and business practices in order to provide a business
environment that provides timely access to reliable information.
Currently, most of the AOC's various systems do not share information
or common data definitions. The implementation of a new Financial
Management System (FMS) and the integration of other systems with FMS
will be a major step towards AOC's system integration goal. The FMS
implementation will also lead to the AOC's first preparation and audit
of financial statements. These goals are fully consistent with the
Vision Statement of the Legislative Branch Financial Manager's Council,
which the agency has adopted. Currently the AOC has implemented the
Standard General Ledger of FMS and is in process of implementing
additional modules.
The successful implementation of FMS is a critical goal for the
AOC. The new system will provide the AOC with a financial system that
is timely, accurate, compliant with Federal standards, and easily
integrated with other systems. AOC requires a system that is compliant
with federal standards in order to meet the goal of passing a financial
audit conducted under federal auditing guidelines. A modern system that
is easily integrated with other systems is required for AOC to be able
to integrate financial data with the facilities management system
(CAFM), the Project Information Center system (PIC) and Human Resource
Systems. The AOC requires more up-to-date and accurate information in
order to better manage its resources and to be fully accountable to
Congress regarding expenditure of appropriated funds.
The new Financial Management System is being implemented in phases.
The first phase implemented the Standard General Ledger on October 1,
2000. The second phase is currently underway and will include the
implementation of the budget execution, purchasing, accounts payable,
and disbursement modules of the new system and will phase out most of
the old system. Subsequent phases will include the implementation of a
contracting procurement module, the implementation of a fixed asset
module, the implementation of a new Inventory system and the
integration of the facility management system (CAFM). The human
resources system will also be enhanced to provide the financial system
with more detailed labor information for performing cost accounting.
In order to ensure all the proper steps are taken in the
implementation of a new system, and to ensure continued support from
top management, the AOC has organized a steering committee made up of
executives from various AOC user groups and financial system executives
from GAO, the LOC and other Legislative Branch agencies. The purpose of
the committee is to provide advice and feedback regarding the
implementation of a new financial management system and to provide a
forum for addressing high level project issues. An internal FMS
Steering Committee has also been organized to resolve lower level
issues.
The Legislative Branch Financial Manager's Council (LBFMC) is
currently pursuing an initiative to have all Legislative Branch
agencies eventually implement the same financial management software.
The AOC's phased approach to implementing FMS through a cross-servicing
arrangement with another Federal agency is consistent with this LBFMC
initiative. In addition, the AOC participated in the LBFMC Concept of
Operations Study and is prepared to participate in the documentation of
the requirements.
Pending approval of fiscal year 2002 funding, a pro forma audit of
the fiscal year 2002 financial statements will be performed. A pro
forma audit evaluates the sufficiency of the financial statements
without issuing a formal audit opinion and without performing an in-
depth review of the detailed transactions that make up the balances.
The pro forma audit will prepare the AOC for the full audit that is
expected to be performed for fiscal year 2003 (ending Sept. 30, 2003).
Since the new financial management system is being implemented in a
phased approach, this is the soonest a full audit will be feasible.
Funding for a full audit will be requested for fiscal year 2003.
Implementing a new financial system requires the hiring of
additional staff that are qualified to perform the new functions being
provided with the new system. A staff of five systems accountants were
hired to perform the implementation. The implementation of the general
ledger in Phase 1 required the Accounting office to hire two additional
accountants to maintain the general ledger. As the AOC continues
implementing FMS, additional staffing requirements will need to be
addressed.
III. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR
Hired staff and organized the Financial Management Systems Office
The FMS Office currently consists of four Systems Accountants and
one Supervisory Systems Accountant. This is the absolute minimum number
of staff required to perform the FMS implementation over a multi-year
phased approach. A vacancy announcement is currently pending for the
hiring of an Accounting Technician to assist in data entry and
reporting tasks.
Implemented Phase 1 of the FMS project
Phase 1 of the FMS project was successfully implemented on schedule
and within budget on October 1, 2000. Phase 1 implemented the Standard
General Ledger for the AOC. Interfaces were developed with the Computer
Applications Specialists (CAS) accounting system and the NFC payroll
system. All transactions that occur in these two systems update the FMS
general ledger on a daily basis. The AOC can now issue financial
statements in accordance with Standard General Ledger guidelines.
The implementation of Phase 1 required the Accounting Division to
pursue the hiring of two additional accountants to maintain the general
ledger and perform reconciliations. The vacancy announcements have been
issued and staff members are expected to be hired by May, 2002.
Maintained Production FMS
The FMS Office successfully maintained the new financial system
from October 1, 2000 to present, by processing the daily interfaces,
performing reconciliations, issuing monthly Status of Funds reports,
preparing ad-hoc reports, and providing support to end users.
Began Phase 2 of the FMS Implementation
Phase 2 of the FMS project began on October 1, 2000. This phase
includes the implementation of budget, procurement, receiving, accounts
payable and disbursement processes in FMS. It also includes an
interface with the Project Information Center (PIC) system and an
interface with the CAS inventory system. Phase 2 is currently on
schedule to begin production operations on March 1, 2002, however it is
only funded through September 30, 2001. The successful implementation
of Phase 2 is dependent on receiving sufficient fiscal year 2002
funding.
IV. UPCOMING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
Complete the Implementation of Phase 2 of the Financial Management
System (FMS)
Phase 2 is the implementation of the Budget, Purchasing, Accounts
Payable and Disbursement subsystems of FMS. This phase is currently in
process. The following tasks will be performed to complete the
implementation of Phase 2 of FMS:
--Complete the documentation of user requirements for the
procurement, accounting, budgeting and jurisdiction offices
--Determine the system configuration to meet user requirements
--Perform a pilot test of the configured system
--Develop an interface with the Project Information Center (PIC)
System
--Develop an interface with the CAS inventory system
--Set-up software on PC's for up to 200 users
--Develop software to convert open obligation data at the detail
level
--Develop end-user reports
--Develop end-user data entry procedures
--Train system users and provide production user support.
Phase 2 is funded through September 2001. The successful
implementation of Phase 2 on March 1, 2002 is dependent on receiving
sufficient fiscal year 2002 funding.
The implementation of Phase 2 is expected to increase workloads in
the jurisdictions and their staffing requirements. In order to be able
to take advantage of the new functions being implemented with FMS and
to keep the data accurate, the right people are needed in the right
places.
Continue Maintenance of Production FMS
The FMS Office will continue to maintain the new financial system
for Phase 1 by processing the daily interfaces, performing
reconciliations, issuing monthly Status of Funds reports' preparing ad-
hoc reports, and providing support to end users. An annual close for
fiscal year 2001 will be performed in October 2001. On March 1, 2002,
the FMS Office will begin maintaining FMS for Phase 2 which includes
supporting up to 200 new users across all AOC jurisdictions. This also
will require the FMS office to keep a training plan in place to
continue to train new users on the system.
Begin Phase 3 of the FMS project--Implementation of a Contracting
Procurement module
Phase 3 will implement the AMS Procurement Desktop (PD) software
package. Procurement Desktop is a stand-alone procurement system that
interfaces with the FMS system. The AOC will use the PD package to
perform contracting activities. The workload in the contracting office
has increased significantly because of the contracting out of more
construction projects. Implementing PD will allow the contracting
office to perform contracting activities more timely and efficiently.
PD provides robust functionality for keeping track of solicitations,
contracts, and contract amendments. It provides functionality to allow
the AOC to load all contract clauses and pick and choose the proper
clauses for each contract. It also produces the standard federal
government contract forms. Activities to implement Phase 3 will begin
in January, 2002 with a production date scheduled for October 1, 2002.
The implementation of Phase 3 is dependent on receiving sufficient
fiscal year 2002 funding.
Begin Additional Phases of the FMS Implementation
Depending on the receipt of sufficient funding for fiscal year
2003, and the outcome of the LBFMC ``common system'' initiative, the
FMS phased implementation will proceed as follows:
Phase 4 Implementation of a Fixed Asset module
Phase 4 will implement the Fixed Assets module. With the
implementation of Phase 4 the AOC will have automated records of its
fixed assets and will be able to record automated depreciation entries
in the general ledger. Proper accounting of fixed assets is required to
receive an unqualified audit opinion. Phase 4 is expected to begin
production operations on October, 2003. The implementation of Phase 4
is dependent on receiving sufficient fiscal year 2003 funding.
Phase 4 is expected to increase staffing requirements in order for
the AOC to properly maintain the fixed asset records.
Phase 5 Implementation of a new Inventory System
Phase 5 will implement a new Inventory system that interfaces with
the core accounting system. The current inventory system needs to be
replaced because it cannot effectively interface with FMS real-time,
and it is lacking some basic inventory functionality. A modern, off-
the-shelf, stand-alone inventory product that meets all of the AOC's
basic inventory needs will be procured and integrated with FMS. With
the implementation of Phase 5, the AOC will completely eliminate the
CAS system. Phase 5 is tentatively scheduled for production operations
on October 1, 2003. The implementation of Phase 5 is dependent on
receiving sufficient fiscal year 2003 funding.
In order to properly implement the new inventory system, a Business
Process Re-engineering analysis needs to be performed. The current
inventory process needs to be studied and improved prior to
implementing the new system.
Phase 5 is expected to increase staffing requirements in order for
the AOC to properly maintain the inventory records.
Subsequent Phase--Integration of FMS with the CAFM system
In order to gather costing data for strategic decision making, CAFM
will need to receive cost data from FMS related to work orders. It is
expected that FMS will provide CAFM with inventory costs and labor
costs by work order. In order for FMS to provide this information, the
Time and Attendance system and the Inventory system (which will feed
the data to FMS) need to be enhanced or replaced to allow the entry of
work order numbers in the originating systems.
Subsequent Phase--Implementation of a new Time & Attendance
System
The AOC currently uses the USDA NFC Payroll/Personnel system. The
time and attendance data is recorded through the NFC's PC-Tare system.
A new or enhanced Time & Attendance system is required for the AOC to
record project data and work order data on a daily basis for labor.
This will eliminate several ``cuff'' systems that track daily labor and
allow the accumulation of work order cost data in FMS.
V. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BUDGET ANALYSIS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------ Total
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre FMS................................................. 600 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 600
FMS Phase 1--General Ledger............................. 50 650 500 ...... ...... ...... 1,200
FMS Phase 2--Budget, Purchasing, A/P, Disb.............. ...... ...... ...... 1,475 1,356 ...... 2,83
FMS Phase 3--Contracting................................ ...... ...... ...... ...... 720 ...... 720
FMS Phase 4--Fixed Assets............................... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 671 671
FMS Phase 5--Inventory.................................. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 972 972
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 650 650 500 1,475 2,076 1,643 6,994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Project.--The FMS system will be performed in five phases.
Phase 1 (funded) will implement the General Ledger module. Phase 2
(fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 funding) will implement the
Budget Execution, Purchasing, Accounts Payable, Disbursements, modules
and Itemized Purchasing module. Phase 3 (fiscal year 2002 funding) will
implement the Procurement Desktop system. Phase 4 (fiscal year 2003
funding) will implement the Fixed Assets module. Phase 5 (fiscal year
2003 funding) will implement a new Inventory system. Note: Phases 4 and
5 are dependent on the outcome of the Legislative Branch Financial
Managers Council (LBFMC) initiative to perform a shared procurement of
a Legislative Branch financial management system.
Basis of Estimate.--Estimates include initial software license
fees, initial hardware fees, and contractor implementation support
fees. The estimates for Phases 1-4 are based on estimates from the
Department of Interior (DOI) (cross-servicing agency). The DOI
estimates were compared to in-house developed estimates and determined
to be reasonable and accurate for the software fees and support
required to implement the FMS software and the Procurement Desktop
software. The estimate for Phase 5 is based only on an in-house
estimate since the software package to be implemented has not been
identified at this point. The above estimates do not include costs for
integrating FMS with the Facilities Management System (CAFM) or the
cost of implementing a new Time & Attendance system. The cost for the
FMS/CAFM integration and a new Time & Attendance system may be included
in a future funding request, once the integration requirements have
been determined and refined. Also not included in the estimates are the
recurring operational costs such as software license maintenance fees,
cross-servicing hardware fees, and contractor technical and functional
production support. The recurring costs will be included in the Annual
Operating Budget request.
APPENDIX H--COMPUTER AIDED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT (CAFM)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Computer Aided Facilities Management system (CAFM) is a five-
year initiative to modernize and establish stronger and more pro-active
facilities management capabilities using industry standards and
software. Within the AOC community, CAFM is phasing in several modules
of traditional industry defined computer aided facilities management
operations. The CAFM initiative establishes standards for demand
maintenance/work order processing and preventive maintenance while also
providing an automated and systematic vehicle for facilities
management. The AOC CAFM system will assist in establishing both bench
marking and Executive Information System (EIS) reports to facilitate
management decisions to better support the needs of Congress. The four
priorities established by the CAFM Steering Committee called for the
implementation of the Demand Work Order Module; Facility Projects
(which has been renamed Work Order Linkage Initiative, or WOLI); the
Preventive Maintenance Module; and establishing a cost avoidance,
benefits and savings methodology for the House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Appropriations. Three of the four priorities have been
completed. Current fiscal year 2002 initiatives plan for the deployment
of several areas of Preventive Maintenance within the AOC which
includes the following: planned/scheduled maintenance; building
commissioning; fire extinguisher inspection; and facility condition
assessment.
II. CAFM INITIATIVES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Fiscal Year 1998
Procured and installed PC/printer hardware along with SPAN-FM
software.
Established a Standards Committee to establish work management
standards for the demand work order module of CAFM.
Completed deployment of the demand work order module to the
following jurisdictions: Senate, Capitol, House, Supreme Court, and the
Library of Congress.
Fiscal Year 1999
Completed deployment of the demand work order module to EED,
Capitol Grounds, High Voltage.
Implemented custom MS Access reports for demand work order and
space management.
Started reviewing requirements for Preventive Maintenance and
establish PM pilot for Senate, Capitol, and House A/C shops.
Initiated discussions to interface with FMS for material
accountability.
Completed and received approval of a CAFM cost methodology which
identified key performance indicators in support of the House IG
request for methodology.
Fiscal Year 2000
Completed deployment of the demand work order module to Botanic
Gardens.
In process of rolling out the Work Order Linkage Initiative (WOLI)
to all jurisdictions.
Converted MS Access reports into Brio One software--this package
was selected as the report writer tool of choice by the IRM and the
CAFM user communities.
Testing of new CAFM software and hardware on-going for system
upgrade and migration.
Fiscal Year 2001
Power Plant implemented on the demand work order module--All
jurisdictions up and running on demand work order module
WOLI deployment completed.
CAFM Newsletter developed to aid in the dissemination of CAFM news
to the user community.
CAFM Web site development--Static page with general information
awaiting approval and hosting--dynamic link to be developed to provide
a feed back mechanism to the CAFM community, Superintendents, and AOC
decision makers.
Initiate Botanic Garden Building Commissioning.
Initiate Capitol Life Safety Planned Maintenance Initiative.
Initiate CAFM EIS and Web Portal.
iii. fiscal year 2002 work plan
Continued CAFM support
--Demand work order
--Bench marking
--Work Order Linkage Initiative
--Preventive Maintenance
--Life Safety Planned Maintenance
Planned Maintenance
--Senate
--House
--Capitol
--Power Plant
--Library of Congress
--Supreme Court
Materials Management
PM Materials Catalog
Interfaces
--FMS
Facility Condition Assessment AOC Wide
IV. SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 CAFM BUDGET ITEMS
Communications Initiative
Facility Management (FM) Web Portal.--The FM Portal will provide
the ``front door'' for AOC FM services and operations to internal and
external customers, employees and AOC management. In 2002 the plan is
to survey and catalog existing resources and then begin to define the
scope, content, technology infrastructure, management and support
model. Cost $25,000.
EIS Reporting Tools.--In 2002 AOC management will continue to
define, develop and deploy a mix of query, analysis and reporting tools
which examine several mission-critical systems for operational,
financial, human and material resource utilization in the organization.
Cost $50,000.
Facility Life Cycle Initiative
Facility Information Commissioning.--Building on work started in
the Botanic Gardens Conservatory Remodeling during 2001, information
commissioning principles will be incorporated into standard
specifications issued by the AOC and will provide orientation and
training for management in AOC technical and professional services
departments. This work will be coordinated with planned remodeling and
new construction projects in order to maximize benefits to the AOC.
Cost $50,000.
Asset Inventory and Preventive Maintenance.--Collection of capital
asset and maintained asset information into the CAFM system and
development of a CMMS-based preventive maintenance program is one of
the highest priorities of the AOC. In 2002 the AOC will move beyond the
infrastructure and standards-development stages and will implement
computer-based asset management and PM for a significant portion of its
facilities. However, the extent of its progress is dependent on
individual jurisdictions funding professional engineering services to
collect asset information and define appropriate maintenance procedures
and schedules.
Jurisdictions should allocate a total of approximately $1,500,000
for professional engineering services for this effort.
CAFM consulting cost in support of asset inventory and PM is
$300,000.
Facility Condition Assessment.--Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)
services provide both a comprehensive conditions audit and plant
capital renewal analysis which support both strategic capital planning
and tactical operations budgeting. AOC has adopted FCA principles and
is beginning to implement FCA projects in order to enhance
significantly its ability to provide best-in-class management of
congressional facilities.
Jurisdictions should allocate a total of approximately $820,000 for
professional engineering services for this effort.
CAFM consulting cost in support of FCA is $100,000 for fiscal year
2002.
Life Safety and Code Compliance.--Through asset management,
preventive maintenance procedures and scheduling, the CAFM system is
well suited to support record-keeping and regular inspection tasks
associated with compliance requirements. In 2002 AOC will continue to
expand use of the CAFM system in this role throughout its many
facilities. Cost $150,000.
CAFM Time sheets.--Building on the discovery and analysis
activities programmed for 2001, the AOC may begin to implement unified
time collection. Cost $25,000.
The CAFM budget requirement for fiscal year 2002 is $700,000. This
funding is essential to the continued deployment of a computer based
facility management system which will better capture the true work load
of work performed in all of the AOC jurisdictions. With the demand work
order system fully operational, we have visibility of approximately 10
percent of all work performed AOC wide. With the deployment of the
preventive maintenance module, CAFM will be able to capture the
outstanding 80 percent of work. Once the majority of work is captured
via CAFM, the information can be formatted via reports and the
Executive Information System to make solid management decisions about
resources, materials and schedules.
APPENDIX I--PROJECT MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project planning and delivery processes and organization of the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC) have been under review by independent
consulting firms. The purposes have been to streamline the processes
and staff organization as appropriate based upon ``best practices''
drawn from the AOC and industry.
Although the general findings of three separate studies indicated
that the organization of the AOC and project operations and output are
effective, several recommendations for improvement have been accepted
and are being implemented. AOC project managers are now assigned for
the life of a project, from early scope definition through design,
construction and early occupancy. AOC standards and guidelines have
been vastly improved and initial versions of new AOC manuals have been
published. These address design standards, performance requirements for
design consultants, and best practices for AOC project managers. The
use of external design consultants and creative construction
contracting methods has expanded. A long-term project planning process
has been launched along with an enhanced project tracking system.
These and other related initiatives to enhance, consolidate and
streamline project delivery processes and tools will continue
throughout 2001 and beyond. They are considered imperative in light of
the increasing workload required of the AOC staff in preserving and
enhancing the facilities and infrastructure of the Capitol complex.
Best practices will be applied to a series of ``pilot'' projects--real
projects of the AOC such as the Capitol Visitor Center and fire safety
improvements, which will benefit greatly as a result. Additional
professional staff will be required to serve as able project managers
and to function in the new project planning office that will result in
a greater AOC and client understanding of long range needs, the more
orderly prioritization of work, and better definition of project scope,
budget and schedule, agreed to by clients and the AOC prior to the
commencement of the design process.
II. INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AOC RESPONSES
The organization of the AOC and project operations and output were
found to be functioning effectively, especially with respect to quick
response functions of jurisdictional superintendents. A substantial
number of ``best practice'' processes and tools were found within all
divisions of the AOC and especially the design and construction units.
Capable employees were found at all levels in the AOC--employees who
are passionate stewards of the historic buildings in the Capitol
Complex and anxious to improve their abilities to do their jobs.
Recommendations for improvements related to project identification,
planning, scope determination, design, procurement and construction.
The studies concluded that there were many actions that should be taken
by the AOC top and middle management to enhance, consolidate, and
streamline the project delivery processes and tools then in use. The
following were the principal findings and corrective actions
recommended to the AOC, with AOC responses to date in italics:
Establish a Formal Long Range Planning System.--The AOC should
establish a planning operation to manage the development and cyclical
review of long range (10 years or more), mid-range (5 year) and
immediate (1 to 2 year) project plans based upon continuous input from
clients and AOC line staff and technical experts representing all
architectural and engineering disciplines and other interests such as
life safety and security. Project definition should be improved with
more thorough programming. Documentation of scope and budget to reduce
``scope creep'' should be initiated at project conception.
The AOC has established the criteria and process for planning as
well as a related project database with standardized project
descriptions and categorizations to allow for the sorting and
consolidation of project data in ways that will enable prioritization
and enhance decision-making by AOC officials and clients. The long-
range plans will be generated first by building system and component,
then integrated by building, then jurisdiction, and finally AOC-wide.
The AOC will manage the planning process and clients will establish and
modify priorities as appropriate in the process of assessing the impact
of unanticipated new work and emergency projects on the established
long and short range plans. The five-year AOC Capital Budget and annual
budget submissions will be products of this planning process. A new
core planning staff will have to be established with skills appropriate
to long-range planning and the preparation of project programs and
scopes of work.
Clarify Project Responsibility and Accountability.--An AOC Project
Manager should be assigned for the life of a project, from early scope
definition through design, construction and occupancy. For purposes of
project progress reporting, the Project Manager should report through a
Program Director to the Assistant Architect of the Capitol (AAOC).
This has been effected and all project managers assigned during the
past year were given responsibility for the life of the project.
Program Directors have been identified. Through these directors and the
AAOC, project progress has begun to be monitored more effectively,
leading to more timely actions to resolve problems. New AOC Project
Manager and Construction Manager Manuals have been developed and
coordinated with each other, to define the relationships of design
professionals and construction management staff during construction
administration phases. Standard tools have been developed to support
the relationships and standard benchmarks for decisions established. In
the autumn of 2000, a comprehensive training program was launched to
explain the new project management responsibilities, methods and tools.
The best forms and tools from within the agency were collected,
consolidated and the best made mandatory for staff use. These were
demonstrated during the training program.
Improve Project Management Control Systems.--The existing project
tracking system should be upgraded, the interface improved, proper data
types tracked to support management functions, and clear lines of
authority established. The Project Manager should be assigned
responsibility for maintaining the data on his or her project. Enhanced
linkages to standards, guidelines, and drawings should be incorporated
into the new interface.
A new project tracking system has been designed and implemented.
The Project Information Center (PIC) is web-based and supports the
project manager in schedule, scope and budget definition and tracking
throughout the life of a project. The system is designed to provide
early reporting of ``out-of-range'' projects and to provide earliest
notice of impending procurement and construction actions to the
affected AOC divisions. The new system provides real-time status of
projects to managers and Superintendents. Custom report formats are
being designed to draw specific information from the extensive project
data to suit planning, budget, management, Superintendent and support
functions, without necessitating conversions to spreadsheets or other
formats for analysis. This system is in use and is subject to
continuing improvements.
Enhance Client Perspective.--Client involvement and approval
systems should be improved. Firm schedules with due dates and
milestones should be required within new tracking systems. Leveraging
the knowledge of the various Superintendents' offices should be
institutionalized during project initiation processes.
The Superintendents' strong, front-line relationship with clients
is widely understood and appreciated, and will be more prominently
recognized and used to the advantage of all parties in the project
planning, scoping, design and construction processes. The
Superintendents and their knowledgeable staff have been given
additional responsibility for meeting with any client who has requested
assistance, preparing an initial statement of scope, and determining if
the client's needs can be satisfied by the issuance of a work order to
the Superintendent's work forces or if an AOC-wide team needs to be
assigned to address the client needs as a full project requiring
further scope definition, design and construction. In either the work
order or the project delivery process, the Superintendent will remain
fully involved with the work and with client communication.
Optimize In-House Design and Construction Supervision.--The AOC
professional staff members should leverage their time by enforcing new
published standards and delivery requirements, and by applying their
institutional knowledge to those areas that are difficult to delineate
in manuals. This will overcome the tendency of AOC Project Managers,
acting as stewards of the historic buildings with substantial
institutional knowledge, to perform too much of the project quality
control for consulting architects and engineers during design phases,
by both noting design deficiencies and resolving the problems noted
rather than allowing consultants to properly resolve such design
issues.
AOC project managers have been directed to enforce these new
standards. Requirements for pre-reviews of consultant submissions by
project managers will optimize the review efforts by AOC staff. The AOC
has classified all projects as large, medium or small, and provided
project managers with guidance as to the design and review phasing and
deliverables appropriate for each size of project. All projects do not
require the same number of design stages or the same deliverables for
review or at project completion. By classifying projects by size and
complexity during the programming phase, both consultant and AOC staff
time can be better directed to work appropriate for the project at hand
as opposed to simply fulfilling requirements for a typical large
project. The AOC has literally hundreds of small projects, dozens of
medium sized projects, and a limited number of large projects each
year. Large projects typically extend through several funding cycles.
The multiple stages of design and review of the work while bidding
documents are being prepared are not required for the hundreds of small
projects that involve room or suite renovations or restorations of
hearing room rostrums, for example. Classifying project size has also
begun to reduce the number of meetings held, travel required, reviews
conducted, and general paperwork involved. Newly-developed standard
review comment forms and ``Action-Log'' type meeting minutes formats
have been provided to project managers. Now in use, these streamline
the process of consolidating discipline comments and highlighting
needed responses.
Enhance Consultant Utilization.--The AOC should use consultants
more comprehensively during the construction phase. Initial consultant
agreements should encompass enhanced construction administration duties
to ensure that consultants understand that they will be responsible for
overseeing the execution of the work that they design--thus encouraging
the production of better construction documents. AOC requirements
related to project delivery should be better defined, published and
disseminated in the form of guidelines, manuals, checklists, and
electronic tools and systems.
The AOC has begun to expand its use of external design consultants.
This means an increase in the use of ``indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity'' (IDIQ) professional services contracts and possibly other
creative architect and engineer selection procedures that are also fair
and competitive on the basis of professional qualifications. The
consultants are being assigned to a greater share of responsibility
during the construction administration phase, which is a substantial
change in AOC practice.
Enhance Construction Delivery Methods.--The AOC should continue to
expand its options for construction delivery to ensure the most
balanced and efficient use of AOC staff and the timely completion of
work with minimum disturbance to building occupants and visitors. The
options will supplement the traditional and dependable quick-response
teams and maintenance shops of the Superintendents. Additionally,
construction documents should be reviewed and coordinated against
refined agency checklists to help reduce document errors. Beyond these
traditional options, the use of newer Solution Order Contracting (SOC)
and Job Order Contracting (JOC) methods, should be enhanced.
The AOC has begun to use SOC contracts with success. For the first
time the AOC has contracted with an external Construction Manager to
direct the massive Capitol Visitor Center project and is in the process
of adding another to direct the significant renovation of the U.S.
Supreme Court Building. New guidelines and standards have been
published. Together with new standard forms and tools that have been
set forth, the AOC is expecting improvement in construction documents
produced by consultants.
III. PILOT PROJECTS
Best practices are being applied to several important projects of
the AOC. The continued involvement of consultants in assisting the
management teams for these projects is beneficial to the projects and
useful in sustaining momentum toward positive change in the agency and
especially among the ranks of project managers. The pilots include the
Renovation of the Conservatory of the United States Botanic Garden, the
Infrastructure Modifications at the Rayburn House Office Building, the
Renovation of the Page Dormitory at 501 First Street, and the design
and construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. Also included are more
comprehensive master plans for the design and construction of fire
safety measures throughout the Capitol complex, infrastructure
modernizations throughout the United States Capitol, and similar
modernizations in the U.S. Supreme Court Building.
APPENDIX J--BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2002 budget request is
$298,957,000. It consists of an operating request of $196,356,000 and a
capital request of $102,601,000. The full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions remain the same at 2,012. However, funding is requested to
fill 48 unfunded positions. The attached graph ``Fiscal Year 2002
Operating and Capital Budget by Categories'' breaks out the operating
and capital request by significant categories. The graph ``Fiscal Year
2002 Operating and Capital Budget'' reflects the history of the
Architect of the Capitol's budget since fiscal year 1994.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST
The operating budget request includes an $25,749,000 or 15.1
percent increase. Thirty-four percent, or $8,753,000 of the increase,
is due to mandated pay and benefits costs. Fifty percent, or
$12,905,000 of the increase, is related to work load increases and
includes $3,446,000 for 48 unfunded positions, $523,000 for project
delivery, $968,000 for fire and life safety, $860,000 for information
resources management, $154,000 for financial management, $364,000 for
energy management, $285,000 for operations, and $292,000 for reopening
the Botanic Garden. Price level adjustments account for 20 percent, or
$5,141,000, of the increase and are primarily related to fuel costs. A
four percent reduction occurred due to the project election year moves
being removed from the base as nonrecurring.
Over the past year the AOC has undertaken a review of the agency's
operations and is in the process of reengineering. As displayed in the
attached graph ``Full-time Equivalent Employment Budget'' staffing has
been reduced by more than 16 percent or almost 400 positions since
1992. During the same period workload has increased, especially in the
areas of life safety, security initiatives and project oversight. It is
important to recognize that we have reached the saturation point where
the amount of work to be done in several areas has taxed our staff
capacities to the fullest extent. This budget includes requested
increases for staff in several critical areas. Funding is requested for
13 positions in the Life Safety Division, 7 positions for project
delivery, 10 for information resources management and support, 2
accountants for financial management, 5 for energy management, 5
positions for general operations at the Capitol Power Plant and Library
of Congress mainly to supplement the trades staff, and 6 positions for
the Botanic Garden to support the reopening of the newly renovated
Conservatory.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
An increase of $3,517,000 is requested for the Information
Resources Management Division. As the agency becomes more dependent on
automated systems in the areas of financial management, and facilities
maintenance it is critical that the hardware and software resources
needed to support these systems are available.
An increase of $362,000 is requested for life safety operations and
maintenance. These resources are required to provide compliant safety
and environmental programs and to be proactive in all matters that
involve fire and life safety, employee safeguards, environmental
monitoring, and discharge of potentially dangerous materials.
An increase of $400,000 is requested to support the operation of
the new financial management system including an ``audit'' of pro forma
financial statements. Funding of $1,136,000 has been requested in the
Botanic Garden related to the operation of the newly renovated
Conservatory.
Funding of $684,000 has been requested in the Senate Office
Buildings to continue the lease at Postal Square. Additional funding of
$210,000 has been requested in the House Office Buildings for fixture
relamping and also in the Library of Congress for the same purpose at a
cost of $370,000.
Based on projections from the Department of Energy a net increase
of $4,258,000 has been requested to cover rising costs of natural gas,
fuel oil and water sewer services for the Capitol Power Plant. Other
price level increases totaling $199,000 have been requested throughout
the agency.
The following table indicates operating budget request by
appropriation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Appropriation 2001 2002 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings............................................... $39,346,000 $49,139,000 +$9,793,000
Capitol Grounds................................................. 5,127,000 5,878,000 +751,000
Senate Office Buildings......................................... 42,155,000 45,527,000 +3,372,000
House Office Buildings.......................................... 32,177,000 34,259,000 +2,082,000
Capitol Power Plant............................................. 38,581,000 45,824,000 +7,243,000
Library Buildings & Grounds..................................... 9,925,000 11,297,000 +1,372,000
Botanic Garden.................................................. 3,296,000 4,432,000 +1,136,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 170,607,000 196,356,000 +25,749,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST
The capital budget request is $102,601,000. This is an increase of
$68,139,000 or 197.7 percent over fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2002 capital budget request flows from the five-
year capital budget initiative undertaken by the agency. It is grounded
in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide planning effort with in-
depth involvement by all of the agency's clients. On the House side, we
included the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and the
Clerk of the House. On the Senate side we included the Sergeant at Arms
and the Secretary of the Senate. The U.S. Capitol Police provided a
detailed outline of their needs, and the Librarian of Congress was also
extensively involved. During the development process more than 440
projects were reviewed. Of that number, funding is requested for 115
projects in fiscal year 2002. Funding requests are projected over the
next four years for an additional 392 projects.
Construction funding has only been requested in fiscal year 2002
for those projects that have been completely designed. Because of the
agency's current workload, only the most critical projects have been
requested in fiscal year 2002. The five-year capital budget is
projecting requests in the fiscal years 2003 through 2006 as follows:
Fiscal year Amount
2003.................................................... $197,915,000
2004.................................................... 181,641,000
2005.................................................... 281,937,000
2006.................................................... 141,576,000
All the projects associated with future requests will be reviewed
and reprioritized before being included in a current fiscal year
request. However, the magnitude of the future capital project needs is
evident from this table.
Attached is a graph ``Fiscal Year 2002 Capital Requests by
Category'' and a table ``Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request by Category''
that breaks out the amount, number of projects and the percentage of
each by category. Three projects account for more than 48 percent of
the request. Those projects are the Capitol Dome ($42,500,000), the
Library of Congress new Audio Visual Conservation Center at Culpeper,
Virginia ($5,000,000), and a new Off-Site Delivery/Screening Center for
the Capitol Police ($6,750,000).
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluding House office buildings
Fiscal year Percent Percent -----------------------------------------
Category 2002 of No. of of Fiscal year Percent Percent
request request projects projects 2002 of No. of of
request request projects projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life safety................. $14,528,000 14.2 30 26.1 $6,725,000 7.8 23 24.2
ADA......................... 1,240 1.2 9 7.8 870,000 1.0 8 8.4
Security.................... 8,546,000 8.3 6 5.2 8,546,000 10.0 6 6.3
Cyclical maintenance/ 450,000 .4 1 .9 0 0 0 0
improvement................
Cyclical maintenance........ 53,385,000 52.0 33 28.7 49,515,000 57.8 28 29.5
Technology/management 4,224,000 4.1 12 10.4 4,199,000 4.9 11 11.6
systems....................
Improvement:
AOC..................... 2,013,000 2.0 10 8.7 2.013,000 2.3 10 10.5
Client.................. 18,215,000 17.8 14 12.2 13,805,000 16.1 9 9.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 102,601,000 100.0 115 100.0 85,673,000 100.0 95 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past years, the AOC developed a reinvestment benchmark of 1.7
percent of the current replacement value of the facilities as a guide
of the amount of cyclical maintenance funding that should be invested
into the Capitol complex. This benchmark excludes capital project
funding relating to the construction of additional facilities, security
enhancements and technology management improvement that are included in
the total capital request. For fiscal year 2002 the benchmark of 1.7
percent would indicate that $63 million should be reinvested in
cyclical maintenance and renovation projects. As indicated on the
attached graph titled ``Cyclical Maintenance and Building
Renovations,'' $77.4 million is being requested for facility
reinvestment projects in fiscal year 2002. Because the benchmark
represents an average, the current request is acceptable due to the
fact it includes a request of $42.5 million for the Capitol Dome
project. However, as indicated on the graph there will be much larger
requests in future years.
Architect of the Capitol Benchmark Data--Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Levels
Current Facility Replacement Value...................... $3,811,000,000
Annual renewal
percentage
AOC Benchmark (Based on Universities of Illinois,
Michigan, and Stanford and the Army Corps of
Engineers).......................................... 1.7
Army Corps of Engineers (Budget Objective).............. 1.75
University Federal Research Cost Recovery (OMB A-21).... 2.0
Conservative Commercial Depreciation at 40 Years (IRS
will accept a faster depreciation rate)............. 2.5
National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences:
Low Range........................................... 1.5
High Range.......................................... 3.0
Fiscal Year 2002 Capital Request (Request $102,601,000
Less $25,175,000 Related to Technology/Management
Systems, Security, and New Facilities).............. 2.0
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The following tables summarizes the funding levels presented in the
five-year capital budget by category and the capital budget request by
appropriation.
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Five Year
Category 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life Safety............................................. $14,528,000 $20,720,000 $33,130,000 $34,850,000 $400,000 $103,628,000
ADA..................................................... 1,240,000 5,805,000 1,966,000 3,456,000 1,560,000 14,027,000
Security................................................ 8,546,000 10,432,000 8,108,000 14,600,000 5,175,000 46,861,000
Cyclical Maintenance--Improvement....................... 450,000 11,580,000 1,050,000 27,000,000 17,000,000 57,080,000
Cyclical Maintenance.................................... 53,385,000 58,256,000 56,635,000 145,274,000 71,591,000 385,141,000
Technology/Management Systems........................... 4,224,000 4,726,000 2,315,000 1,657,000 1,350,000 14,272,000
Improvement--AOC........................................ 2,013,000 57,993,000 1,400,000 11,800,000 2,100,000 75,306,000
Improvement--Client..................................... 18,215,000 28,403,000 77,037,000 43,300,000 42,400,000 209,355,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 102,601,000 197,915,000 181,641,000 281,937,000 141,576,000 905,670,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST BY APPROPRIATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Appropriation No. of Fiscal Year 2001 2001 Budget 2002 Request Change Dollars Major Fiscal Year 2002 Project
Projects Dollars Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Buildings--13 projects.......... $5,278,000 $62,696,000 $57,418,000 Rehabilitate Capitol Dome--$42,500,000. Off-site Delivery Center--$6,750,000. USPC Vehicle Maintenance
Facility--$3,260,000. Financial Management System--$2,076,000. Replace Exit Doors for Emer. Egress &
Security--$782,000.
Capitol Grounds--13 projects............ 223,000 1,876,000 1,653,000 Security Improvements, HSOB Horseshoe Entrance, NE--$1,100,000. CAD Database Development--Site
Utilities & Grounds--$320,000.
Senate Office Buildings--7 projects..... 21,678,000 8,024,000 -13,654,000 Construct Garage, Square 724--$3,000,000. Modernize Elevators (12), HSOB--$1,440,000. Interim Control
Room for Televised Hearings--$500,000.
House Office Buildings--2 projects...... 501,000 16,928,000 16,427,000 Renovate Rayburn Cafeteria--$3,460,000. Elevator Modernization Program--$3,000,000. Roof Fall
Protection--$2,444,000. Fire Alarm System Upgrades for ADA--$1,514,000.
Capitol Power Plant--5 projects......... 747,000 1,275,000 528,000 Replace Deaerator Heaters--$335,000. Install Dual Low NO<INF>X</INF> Burners, Boilers 5-7--$200,000.
Library Buildings & Grounds--8 projects. 6,010,000 10,105,000 4,095,000 Audio Visual Center--$5,000,000. Roof Fall Protection, LB&G--$1,778,000. Egress Improvements--
$550,000.
Botanic Garden--1 projects.............. 25,000 1,697,000 1,672,000 Conservatory Galleries Design Exhibits--$615,000. Implementation/Contractor Support Conservatory
Courtyards--$400,000.
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 34,462,000 102,601,000 68,139,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Hantman.
In deference to Senator Bennett's leadership on this
subcommittee and his particular interest in the Architect's
office, I would like to invite him to open the questions.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your confidence and your courtesy.
Mr. Hantman, the biggest item that everybody is looking at
at budget time, of course, is the Visitor Center. We need to
know where we are on that. You say we are halfway through the
documents. We will be in a position to have the final documents
done sometime in the fall.
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
PARKING
Senator Bennett. Could you talk a little bit about some of
the side effects of this?
Let us talk about parking. When the Visitor Center
construction gets underway, there will undoubtedly be a
significant impact on both parking challenges and traffic
patterns. I have a little experience with that. Salt Lake City
had to do significant infrastructure in preparation for the
Olympics. And we have no give on the other end. The Olympics
are going to come, and we have had to do all of the
infrastructure preparation, recognizing that the date will be
there.
I think the same is true with respect to the Visitor
Center. There cannot be a delay because the Visitor Center has
to be done in time for the presidential inauguration in January
of 2005. We cannot have the inauguration take place with a hole
in the ground, and we ought to have everything done, back in
place, parking available, landscaping back, and so on. I know
you understand that.
Could you tell us what your plans are with respect to
parking and traffic patterns while the construction is going on
that will make sure there is no delay and we will meet the
deadline of the 2005 inauguration?
Mr. Hantman. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett,
Senator Stevens, there are many cars impacted by this project.
First of all, on the East Capitol Drive, there are 80 cars on
the Senate side, 80 cars on the House side which will be
permanently lost for parking. They will be part of the Visitor
Center area. There will also be cars on the North Drive,
heading towards the west, and parking patterns will have to be
modified as the construction goes forward.
We have been working with the Senate Sergeant at Arms for a
master plan for parking. All of the details certainly have yet
to be worked out, but we are looking at every project that we
have and its impact on parking during that time frame so that
we can play the musical chairs we need to play to make sure
that everybody has a location going forward. So, again, it is
not worked out yet, but we have a master plan in mind. We have
been working with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, talking to the
Rules Committee about that, and that is one of our first
priorities that we are working out in concert with our
construction manager as well.
Senator Bennett. As you look in that direction, are you
going to need any more money? Are you going to have to
construct any more buildings, parking structures, et cetera to
take care of this? Is this something the subcommittee needs to
look forward to in terms of additional requests?
PARKING GARAGE SQUARE 724
Mr. Hantman. As you know, Senator Bennett, we had been
talking for a couple of years about a possible new parking
garage on site 724, which is just north of the Hart Senate
Office Building. We wanted to do that before we started doing
the renovation project on the Russell Legislative Garage.
We have plans now and we have reviewed preliminary plans
with the Senate Rules Committee for a parking structure on that
site. There are currently some 360 or so cars parked on the
surface. The plans that we are talking about are for a four-
story parking garage, potentially to have a command and control
center for the Capitol Police on the lowest level. This is an
option that we are looking into and will be presenting to the
Rules Committee as well.
We are requesting some $3 million to do construction
documents for that project going forward into this fiscal year.
So, yes, we need to continue presenting that and look at that
as potentially the first phase of a structure on that block
front just to the north of the Dirksen and the Hart Senate
Office Buildings.
PROJECT TIME FRAMES
Senator Bennett. Again, mindful of the time frame we are
facing, driving for the inauguration, you have a fiscal year
2002 request for $42.5 million to start on the project of
restoration of the Capitol dome. Life being what it is, you can
always anticipate problems. I very much remember what we did
with respect to the Botanic Gardens. It is now a year and a
half behind schedule. I am told it is still within budget.
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
Senator Bennett. It is a year and a half behind schedule.
If you have got Visitor Center challenges, Capitol dome
challenges, new parking structure challenges, and a series of
new projects all going on simultaneously, with a firm and
unbreakable deadline at the back end, is there a possibility
that we are biting off more than we can chew here and maybe the
consideration ought to be given to delaying some things until
after we are sure that it can all come together? The obvious
candidate for that would be the Capitol dome. I would like you
to talk about that.
Mr. Hantman. Senator Bennett, in past hearings you have
said on multiple occasions, Mr. Hantman, that is a very
ambitious schedule. And clearly that is what you are saying
right now. I walk around the campus and I see so many things
that need to be done. It would be wonderful just to snap your
fingers and have them taken care of. But you are absolutely
right. Priorities need to be established.
CAPITOL DOME PROJECT
As far as the dome is concerned, as you know, we have
successfully completed the first phase. It was a $7.5 million
emergency appropriation, and we fully documented and we have
construction drawings that will show what work needs to be done
for the $42.5 million you have discussed.
We really do have a choice here, though. As you know, we
delayed the Capitol dome project for 1 year from last year
because of the fire safety type of issues that we had to deal
with. We had a $17 million supplemental for fire safety at that
point in time. The Compliance Board had talked about an awful
lot of issues that need to be addressed, and we are working on
those very assiduously. We are making real progress, but
clearly more needs to be done in that direction also. So, when
we delayed the Capitol dome last year, we did it with the idea
that we would be able to concentrate on other issues.
I think we have three choices here at this point in time.
We have the ability to move ahead with that $42.5 million
project. I can show you a site plan that talks about the
staging areas and how we would work the Capitol Visitor Center,
the dome, the perimeter security program and make it work.
The issue there is, though, there is an awful lot on our
plate at this point in time. In fact, I had a little study
commissioned to take a look at what would happen if we put the
dome project off, what more would we need to do. That study
came up with $1.6 million worth of work. For instance, the dome
has not been painted in 12 years now, since 1988 I believe it
is. So, we would have to paint the dome without removing the
lead-based paint and getting down to base metal and doing all
the repair work. We would have to do some removal of lead-based
paint on the interior side where the tours go up to the dome.
We would have to repair some pieces of metal, and all that
would give us is more flexibility to kind of mothball the
project going forward.
So, I think we really have a choice over here, and I do not
think there is really a correct answer. There are really three
options: proceed with it now; we can put it off for another
year and see what is happening on the Visitor Center and other
projects and see if we are in better shape next year; or we can
put it off for the duration of the Visitor Center project or
sometime in between and expend that $1.6 million we think it
would take to kind of mothball the project for a number of
years.
As you know, the initial study indicated that, structurally
speaking, the dome is in fine shape. Our forebearers really
developed a wonderful design. The problem is in the skin and
the leaking. Some of the $1.6 million I identified would put
sealant in those leaks, put a coat of paint on it so we would
not have further deterioration over there. So, that is really a
choice, and if this committee chose to suggest that we put off
the project for another year and see where the Visitor Center
is going and see what kind of condition we are in, we could
probably do that and then, at that time, even make a decision
as to whether we want to do the $1.6 million and put it off for
another 4 years or 5 years. Perhaps there is another Architect
down the road who will be coming in in another 6 years, and
that might be their job.
The issue is there is no structural, fundamental problem.
We did this as an emergency project because there is rust.
There are problems with it. I think with the $1.6 million, we
could probably go through another 5 or 6 years without doing
the full work on the Capitol dome. So, the issue is how much
dislocation we really want to have.
A real consideration also, Senator, is we are about to
embark on the Visitor Center, which is going to be digging a
mighty big hole on the east front. It is going to cause
dislocation over there. In the best of all possible worlds, the
dome would be done at the same time so when the Visitor Center
is finished and the dome is finished, visitors who come here
would not see scaffolding set up around the dome. And I have
boards over here, if you would like to see them, of what the
dome looked like in 1958-1960 when the scaffolding was around
the dome and they were removing and putting on new lead-based
paint that we are going to have to be removing now.
So, yes, it is a long way around to say we do have
flexibility. We do have a choice.
Senator Bennett. Well, I am not sure the committee ought to
be in the position of dictating a decision there. But we have
two examples in front of us: one, the renovation of the Dirksen
Building, which has gone very well and on schedule. I am one of
the beneficiaries of that. I enjoy my corner suite
tremendously. And then we have the Botanic Gardens, which ran
into unexpected problems, a year and a half late. I am sure
nobody deliberately slowed it down. There were some unexpected
challenges. So, you have got one example of something that has
gone very well; you have got another example that ran into
challenges and problems that slowed it down.
I think that is kind of what we pay you that big salary
for--to make some recommendations on the basis of reality. It
would be wonderful for the visitors to come at the inauguration
in 2005 and have everything shiny and spick and span and
terrific. It could be disastrous if they come for the inaugural
in 2005 and everything is behind schedule and we say, if only
we had put this off.
So, I appreciate your examination of the alternatives and
would hope you would come back to the subcommittee with a
pretty firm recommendation one way or the other that we could
look at and say this is realistically where we ought to be.
STAFFING
This brings us to the issue of staffing. I tend to agree
with your opening statement that the statutory requirements
laid down for specific jobs do not make any sense anymore, and
that we probably ought to give you a great deal more
flexibility and simply say you have x number of positions to
fill, kind of the way we do in our Senate offices where we have
a budget for staffing and we can determine how much goes to the
administrative assistant and how much goes to the legislative
director and so on. And you could have some flexibility of,
say, up to a certain level, we are going to put money here,
there, and go after the people you need. I am inclined to
support giving you that kind of flexibility.
I have to note, however, that you have reprogrammed over $7
million out of personnel funds that you were afraid were going
to lapse after you told the subcommittee you had to have all of
this personnel the last time. Why the delay in hiring and why
the fact that you have got excess personnel funds that you now
are using for other purposes for reprogramming?
Mr. Hantman. A fair question, Senator. There are a series
of issues related here. One of them is clearly that, with the
continuing resolution we lost the first quarter of the year to
really accelerate our hiring process. We also, frankly, had
issues within our human resources department in trying to
accelerate that process and move it along.
We have hired, I think, 188 people this year, trying to
fill in the lost numbers of people we had through the buyout a
couple of years ago and through normal attrition. We have
another 50 certifications out, sitting in the offices right
now, and 55 jobs that are almost ready to be filled as well. We
have had a really accelerated process to bring these people on
board.
But clearly as they are brought on for less than the full
calendar year, their salary has been allocated for the entire
year. So, those dollars are left for us to reprogram or use for
other purposes. Much of it has been used for that purpose.
CAPITAL BUDGET
Senator Bennett. One other comment, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
and I will turn this back to you, again with gratitude for your
courtesy and consideration.
Your capital budget. I have a hard time following it. The
numbers from year to year do not seem to coordinate. We get a
capital budget request for 1 year and then there is a capital
budget for the other year, and we cannot really see what has
happened or a flow from one to the other. They seem to come up
de novo each time. Without expecting a specific answer now, I
would appreciate it if you would kind of give us a chart over
time of where the capital budget has been and where you expect
that it will be.
Mr. Hantman. In terms of long-term projections, Senator?
Senator Bennett. Yes, if we can get our arms around that.
Mr. Hantman. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN HISTORY
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FUTURE ADDITIONAL
YEAR 1998 YEAR 1999 YEAR 2000 YEAR 2001 YEAR 2002 YEAR 2003 YEAR 2004 YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 FUNDING FUNDING
REQUIRED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET 53,971 68,160 94,606 72,726 27,993 ......... ......... ......... ......... 36,060 353,516
REQUEST......................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET ......... 87,460 111,936 93,513 62,904 24,433 ......... ......... ......... 32,785 413,031
REQUEST......................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET ......... ......... 118,907 149,509 66,257 114,509 41,376 ......... ......... 66,205 556,763
REQUEST......................
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET ......... ......... ......... 68,739 181,082 81,058 221,570 113,537 ......... 120,620 786,606
REQUEST......................
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET ......... ......... ......... ......... 102,601 197,915 181,641 281,937 141,576 87,954 993,624
REQUEST......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hantman. One other point I wanted to make relative to
the hiring process, I think there is good news in the fact that
we have essentially hired 188 people, but 75 of those positions
have been internal promotions, which is good news I think of
growing the organization, letting people have a career path.
But also, when you think about that, those 75 positions also
have to be filled. So, therefore, the salaries from there are
left out as well and left to be reprogrammed.
WORKER SAFETY
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
I appreciated your reference in your opening statement to
worker safety. You have a clear management challenge there. The
injury rate has a distinction you do not like and we do not
like. I know you are working on it and appreciate your
mentioning it.
The Architect of the Capitol's injury rate is the highest
in the Federal Government, 17.9 injuries per 100 workers. The
Federal Government rate--and this is not really apples and
oranges because many of your people work in situations that are
perhaps more dangerous than in other Federal agencies. But the
Federal Government rate is around four.
So, I appreciate your highlighting that and I think the
subcommittee will look at that very closely in the future to
see how you are doing. If we give you the management
flexibility in terms of salaries that you have asked for, we
would hope that would translate into sound management practices
that can begin to bring down some of the injuries and get a
better level of management expertise throughout the agency as a
whole.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Stevens, I know you have to leave. If you would
like to ask at this point.
INCREASE IN POSITIONS
Senator Stevens. I just have one question. I note you want
to hire 48 new people. What is your turnover rate?
And your comment about the salary level interests me. Are
you seeking a change in the salary level options you have
available?
Mr. Hantman. For the senior management, Senator, yes.
But as far as the turnover rate, it is basically about 10
percent. We have an aging work force, many retirements are
involved in that. So, in terms of the 48 positions that we are
talking about, many of them, 13, are related to fire and life
safety positions that we need to fill, others into the
planning.
Senator Stevens. Are they new positions?
Mr. Hantman. Those are new positions. In fact, we are
looking for funding for those positions. Over time, Senator,
whenever we created, for instance, the financial management
system or our labor management group or our attorney group, we
have had to take those jobs out of some of the support groups,
some of the shops that we have had because we have never had an
increase basically that would allow us to essentially hire FMS
people or hire IRM people.
CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
So, these jobs are specifically really designated by the
Congressional Accountability Act. We have to have people on
life safety, on fire safety, on issues of energy conservation.
These are mandated positions that we are looking to fill right
now. In fact, we are out on the street now for about 30 of
those positions, and hopefully we will get the funding to
support that going forward or we will have to make compromises
in other places in our budget.
Senator Stevens. I did not think that act required new
people as much as a job assignment had to include certain
specifications. You seem to be sort of broadening out a great
deal in terms of senior management, supervisory positions. Is
your work force not expanding considerably?
Mr. Hantman. Senator, there are implications from that act
that are tremendous. We fundamentally have to change the way we
do business. For the first time it allowed unions to come in.
We have six unions we are working with right now and we have to
hire the people to work with the unions.
The Accountability Act has issues relative to OSHA
criteria. The rest of the Nation had to deal with OSHA starting
back in 1970. We have to play catchup ball and deal with those
issues right now.
Relative to ADA, safety working conditions, we have hired
the Public Health Service to help us write new standards, and
there are 41 standards that have to deal with protective
equipment, confined spaces. How people fundamentally do their
jobs needs to be changed.
And the fire and life safety crew that we are asking for
over here are the people who are going to put policies in
place, train people. We are talking to OSHA about having them
help us train people. This is a 5-year project going out, on
the optimistic side, to put all of these 41 different criteria
in place. If you would like to, I could show you the whole list
of what we have to do, the new organization that we are putting
in place that never existed before.
Senator Stevens. I think it is going to be a tough sell up
here. In terms of number of people, it is really blossoming
very quickly into a very much larger workforce than you have
had before. I would like to have some details on that. I looked
through your statement. I did not see really where you had
detailed that.
What about the pay level? You said in your opening
statement you were having problems because of the pay level?
PAY LEVELS
Mr. Hantman. For instance, on the financial side, we have
been looking for a CFO position over a year right now. The
legislation that was put up in 1990 indicates that we have a
limitation on what we could pay and advertise for. Other
agencies are looking for CFO's in the $125,000 to $130,000
range. The maximum that we could look for before this last COLA
was $110,000 because that is what the legislation says. In
fact, the legislation specifies that we have a budget officer
who is locked into the $110,000 cap. Now it is $113,000. So, we
have had the advertisement for a CFO/Budget Officer, and
everybody recognizes that we really need both. We need a budget
officer and we need a CFO, and we have not been able to find
somebody to come on in because we are not competitive with
other agencies. That, in fact, is what is happening. In fact,
we have people who are GS-15's right now who are earning more
than their supervisors because their supervisors are locked
into certain percentages established in that legislation. So,
we have a fundamental problem in terms of keeping our hierarchy
established over here and paying people appropriately, trying
to keep people in financial management systems, in IRM. They
are being attracted away by other agencies. We cannot compete
unless we have some level of flexibility.
FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS
Senator Stevens. The red dots on the lower line is the
actual?
Mr. Hantman. Exactly. We have had some 2,400 FTE's and we
have come down to 2,012 FTE's out of our authorized strength.
The blue line indicates where we are in actual people. We are
not up to our FTE strength. The 188 people I talked about
hiring before and if we get these 48 people as well, we will
still be 60 people below our authorized strength. We just have
not had the funding to hire them going forward.
So, in reality we are not exceeding what our needs are or
what we are authorized to have. In fact, the Comptroller
General indicated in testimony recently that he was looking for
another 120 or so people in his agency to bring him up to his
FTE level because he needs that level of people to get the job
done. That is really the case in our agency as well, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Mr. Hantman, let me follow up on this. Your chart indicates
that your high water mark, at least within modern memory,
fiscal year 1993, was actual employment of 2,357 and the low
water mark appears to have been somewhere in the range of 1,733
a couple of years ago. What I am looking for is some kind of
understanding of what you think is your optimal employment
level here for this agency.
Mr. Hantman. We think that a 2,012 person FTE is a
relatively reasonable level. One of the unknowns that we are
looking at here, as I was telling Senator Stevens, we have 41
new policies to establish for safety issues around here. People
fundamentally need to relearn how to do their jobs. We have
just had a protective gear program come in, and one for HAZMAT
type of issues. The first three policies are in place right
now, and the Public Health Service is issuing the policies at
the rate of one every couple of months.
But then we have to train people. We have to make them
understand how they have to use their protective gear in tough
situations. We have to make sure that their supervisors have
the responsibility and recognize that responsibility to make
sure they wear their protective gear and they do their jobs
appropriately. This is a sea change in the way things have been
done in the past.
Senator Durbin. Can we be confident that at 2,012, we will
not be sitting here a year from now with another request for 48
more or 50 more?
Mr. Hantman. Well, as far as these 41 criteria concerned,
going forward we do not expect it to be significant numbers,
but it should be fairly controlled numbers.
Senator Durbin. I think you have identified a problem which
we are running into in a lot of different places, and that is
to attract a level of expertise. We find ourselves bumping up
against ceilings and caps in terms of salaries. And perhaps we
are not as competitive as we used to be in terms of what we
have to offer. I do not think it is unique to the Architect's
office. I think we are finding that in a lot of areas of the
Federal Government. Senator Voinovich and I, in Government
Affairs, have been looking into this human capital challenge
that we are facing.
We are on a roll call and I am going to try to cover my
areas quickly so we do not have to hold you any longer than
necessary. But I do have a number of areas that do concern me.
WORKER SAFETY
I do not understand this OSHA number. This just does not
make sense to me. I cannot believe it is four times more
dangerous to work in the United States Capitol than anywhere
else in the Federal Government. What is going on here? Why are
more people getting injured on the job in the U.S. Capitol
Building under your Architect's office than we find across the
Federal Government?
Mr. Hantman. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the numbers are too
high, and we are going to work assiduously to lower those
numbers.
Senator Durbin. They are not just too high. They are
astronomic. We are 400 percent over the average for the Federal
Government. This has been reported in the press, so clearly you
have been sensitized to it. What is missing here? What are you
missing in your office in terms of management and employee
education and work place safety that creates this problem?
Mr. Hantman. We are putting an organization together right
now, Senator, to be able to deal with the issues of putting all
those procedures and standards in place that facilitate
workplace injury. First of all, our staff is 80 percent shop-
oriented. People do heavy lifting, heavy jobs. To compare us
with an agency that has people sitting behind a desk possibly
getting carpal tunnel syndrome really is not appropriate.
But as far as the injury rate is concerned, we are
promoting very good reporting criteria.
Senator Durbin. Whom are you bringing in to consult with if
it is necessary for employees to wear certain protective
equipment or back braces? Who is giving you advice on this?
Mr. Hantman. The Public Health Service is working with us
on getting all of these policies and procedures in place. We
are also talking to OSHA about helping us on the training for
this. So, we have established an entirely new program. I can
walk you through our organization, which has never existed,
again, before on Capitol Hill.
Senator Durbin. Is this number that we are facing in this
hearing a new phenomenon that has not happened, or has this
been the level of problems that we have had for a number of
years?
Mr. Hantman. This has been floating around 14 or 15 percent
for a number of years, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Well, I have to tell you then, I am glad
you are responding, but I wonder why we have waited. This is
not only harmful to employees, but it is expensive to the
Federal Government to have people injured, and to have these
dramatically different numbers for the Architect's office. I
have worked in some dangerous work places, and I cannot believe
this is the most dangerous work place in the Federal
Government. It is hard to imagine.
Mr. Hantman. Once again, sir, we have people on the
grounds, at the power plant, other places who are doing the
type of jobs that other agencies do not have. No excuses. They
should not be up that high, and we have an aggressive program
for cutting it back 10 percent every year going forward from
here. So, that is a measurable program that we are going to
have. We have had all the superintendents go out and meet and
talk with all of their people regarding protective gear and
equipment. I have personally gone out with our new Safety
Officer, Sue Adams, to meet with these people and to make sure
that all of the criteria is met relative to OSHA criteria.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, perhaps you can tell me, by
cutting back at 10 percent a year, how long will it be before
the Architect of the Capitol reaches the average for the
Federal Government when it comes to workplace injury?
Mr. Hantman. We are talking about in 5 years coming down to
about 10 percent.
Senator Durbin. That would still be two-and-a-half times
the average for the Federal Government.
Mr. Hantman. When you talk about the average for the
Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, again 80 percent of our
people do heavy lifting, do work of different kinds.
Senator Durbin. I think you need to be more aggressive on
this. I just do not accept this, that we are going to have the
most dangerous workplace in the Federal Government here. That
is hard to explain to anybody. I understand that the power
plant is not the Capitol Building, and there are some heavy
jobs there. But industry deals with this all the time, and they
understand that worker injuries not only hurt the workers, but
hurt their productivity. And that has to be the case for us as
well.
Mr. Hantman. Among the 48 people we are talking about, 13
of them relate to fire and life safety issues that can monitor
these issues and really make sure that people understand what
is necessary and that we can, in fact, bring it down.
Senator Durbin. I am going to work with Senator Bennett. We
are going to see if there is some language we can put in here
that is going to move this to a different level. I do not
accept this notion that in 5 years we will be at 250 percent of
the average for the Federal Government in terms of worker
injuries.
Mr. Hantman. Again, all of those agencies, Senator, had 30
years to work up to where they are right now. We are going to
work very aggressively to cut it as quickly as we possibly can.
Senator Durbin. I think we want to work with you on that.
RECYCLING
One of the most dangerous things you can give to a Senator
are copies of committee reports, which I took with me on the
airplane and started reading. There has been a recurring issue
over recycling in the U.S. Capitol. Again, in this time and
place, we should be setting an example on recycling, and it
appears that there are annual admonitions to the Architect's
office to do something about recycling because it means more
money for the Federal Government. If we give clean waste to the
service through the General Services Administration, it means
that we can make money off of it. If we give them dirty waste,
then we do not.
How much progress has been made?
Mr. Hantman. We have put on board a full-time recycling
manager. We have set up a revolving fund from the proceeds from
the recycling program to be used for the Senate Health and
Fitness Facility.
Senator Durbin. And what have been the results? In terms of
revenues since we have been admonishing the Architect's office
for several years now to do something about recycling, can you
point to an improvement in the fees that we are recovering as a
result of your effort?
Mr. Hantman. We do not have the numbers back that would
point to that. We have the report that the legislation criteria
dictate that we bring to the Senate Rules Committee. We are
ready to meet with them in the next couple of weeks to talk
about our recommendations and they can select the appropriate
alternatives, and we will move forward on the program.
Senator Durbin. But is it working? You have been told for
at least 2 years, maybe longer, to do something, improve the
situation. Have you improved the situation? Are we recycling
more at the U.S. Capitol?
Mr. Hantman. We are recycling more. I do not know what the
numbers are.
Senator Durbin. Why?
Mr. Hantman. Because the reports go through GSA and they
come out periodically.
Senator Durbin. Can the Budget Director help us or someone
else sitting with you?
Mr. Boertlein. I do not have the current data on that, sir.
Mr. Hantman. We will get you the information.
Senator Durbin. Please do that. I would appreciate that
very much.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Senate Office Recycling Program
The Architect of the Capitol manages the U.S. Senate Office
Recycling program in the Hart, Dirksen, and Russell Senate Office
Buildings. (The Senate Sergeant at Arms manages the U.S. Senate side of
the Capitol recycling program.) Centrally located recycling containers
are provided to Member offices for beverage containers and High Grade
paper. As the program is currently designed, desk side recycling
containers are to be used for mixed paper and all trash is to be placed
in centrally located wet waste containers. However, desk side recycling
containers are frequently used for trash collection and white paper,
mixed paper, newspaper, and magazines/mail are all placed into the High
Grade paper containers. These discrepancies are due to a lack of a
clearly defined program, inadequate containers, and inadequate staff
education and training.
Recycled materials are transported to the Hart Loading dock where
they are baled and staged for pick up by the recycling contractor. The
recycling contractor inspects the recycled materials and performs
sorting, separation, and transport to either a recycled materials
processing center or a local landfill. Recycled materials frequently do
not meet recycling contract contamination specifications because of the
high percentage of non-recyclables such as plastic, food, and
styrofoam. The Senate Employee Health and Fitness Fund receives
revenues from recycled materials that are within contamination criteria
specified in the recycling contract. The recycling contractor receives
revenues from materials that exceed contamination criteria. A summary
of the amounts of materials recycled and the revenues generated is
shown in table 1. Table 2 compares the first half of fiscal year 2001
with the first half of fiscal year 2000.
TABLE 1.--U.S. SENATE AND CAPITOL (U.S. SENATE SIDE) \1\ PAPER RECYCLING SUMMARY (10/1/97-3/31/01)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons (Rounded)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amount
Fiscal year Mixed Corrugated Contaminated earned
High grade grade \2\ Newspaper board (No value) Total tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.............................................................. 0.62 185.60 35.34 16.29 433.29 671.14 $5,178
1999.............................................................. 1.59 222.40 0.76 0 379.18 603.93 4,238
2000.............................................................. 0 162.31 2.56 2.85 522.09 689.81 7,850
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4.09 711.09 39.37 19.14 1,573.43 2,347.12 21,481
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Only high grade paper is collected from the Capitol, Senate side.
\2\ Includes both mixed paper and all paper graded as commercial office mix.
TABLE 2.--DATA COMPARISON FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND 2001 (6 MONTH PERIOD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons (Rounded)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1st & 2nd Quarters Mixed Corrugated Dollars
High grade grade \1\ Newspaper board Contaminated Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000--Q1 & Q2..................................................... 0 87.35 2.56 0 257.61 347.52 4,1 74
2001--Q1 & Q2..................................................... 1.88 140.78 0.71 0 238.87 382.24 4,2 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes both mixed paper and all paper graded as commercial office mix.
As Table 1 illustrates, there have been moderate increases in the
amount of high grade and mixed grade paper recycled as well as a
decrease in contaminated material. At the current rate of collection
for the first six months of fiscal year 2001 (see Table 2), it is
estimated that 760 tons of recyclables will be generated for the full
year compared to 690 tons collected for fiscal year 2000. The amount of
recycled cardboard will rise due to the new cardboard baler that became
operational July 1, 2001. It is expected that contamination amounts
will decrease due to the ability to separate and bale cardboard
independently from mixed paper.
The following program improvements have been made within the last
year:
--The Senate Recycling Program Manager position was filled in
November 2000.
--An AOC-wide Recycling Program Manager position was created and
filled in April 2001. (Note: this position is also responsible
for solid and hazardous waste management.)
--The Senate Employee Health and Fitness Fund was created in February
2001 to collect revenue from the Senate Recycling Program.
--A recycling display and information booth were included in the
January 2001 Senate Superintendent's Open House.
--The Senate Superintendent's Office issued a letter indicating
glass, plastic, and aluminum beverage containers could be
commingled and provided stickers to relabel the recycling
containers.
--Each Senate Office designated a recycling liaison to interface with
the Senate Superintendent's office and to promote recycling
within the Member office.
--Senate Superintendent office inspectors meet monthly with Office
Managers on a variety of topics including recycling.
--A new cardboard baler was installed, operators were trained and the
new baler became operational on July 1, 2001.
--Segregation of cardboard from the U.S. Senate Restaurant facilities
began July 2001.
There are opportunities for the continued improvement of the
recycling program. As directed by U.S. Senate S. 2603, the Architect of
the Capitol has been studying improvement options and within the next
three months will be:
--Modifying recycling collection carts to provide separation of
newspaper, white paper, and mixed paper.
--Establishing clearly defined recycling separation and staging areas
at Hart Loading Dock.
--Implementing cardboard separation at other high volume generation
location.
--Advertising availability and providing newspaper recycling
containers to Member offices.
--Offering recycling containers at special events to capture
recyclable commodities.
--Obtaining outside consultant review and recommendations of the
recycling program--existing and proposed.
--Improving AOC recycling and baling personnel training and
understanding of recycling program.
Within the next month, the Architect of the Capitol will be
proposing long term program improvement options to the Senate Rules
Committee. Improvement options will include an increase in the
selection, number, and location of containers as well as improved
recycling awareness and educational opportunities.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about the power plant. It is
fascinating. The numbers that have been in this budget for the
power plant in terms of estimated utility costs really range
pretty widely here. It looks like a 20 percent difference
between 2000 and 2001. Do you have an explanation as to why we
would have such a disparity in the cost of utilities at the
power plant?
Mr. Hantman. We are using a lot more gas than we had used
before. We have an EPA criteria to come in below .43 parts per
million of particulate matter. In order to do that, we have
converted two of our boilers to be able to burn not only coal,
but also gas to bring that down in line. And the cost of gas is
certainly higher than that of coal.
Senator Durbin. I understand that. We are facing that all
over the country, certainly in the Midwest, the increased cost
of natural gas. But that is a relatively recent phenomenon. It
has just been this year. If you were looking for a
supplemental, I could understand it. But there is such a wide
swing here from 1 year a purchase of coal of $685,000 for 2001;
the previous year, $2 million. Three times the cost. The
purchase of oil was $920,000 in 2001, $1.2 million in the
previous year. I need an explanation.
I also want to know if there is anything that we have
imposed on the power plant in terms of their acquisition of
utilities or energy sources that runs the cost up over the
regular market price. So, you need to tell me that too. If you
would look into that with a little more detail, I would
appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
CAPITOL POWER PLANT UTILITY BUDGETS AND COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Account Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002
1999 Budget 2000 Budget 2001 Budget Request Obligations Obligations Obligations Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2303--Annual Gas................................ $1,415,000 $4,982,000 $6,590,000 $7,127,000 $4,786,420 $5,386,535 $6,000,000 $7,127,000
2304--Electrical Energy......................... 21,896,000 22,470,000 22,470,000 23,350,000 20,287,872 20,560,243 21,825,000 23,350,000
2305--Purchase of Steam......................... 248,000 248,000 280,000 300,000 209,728 288,240 340,506 300,000
2306--Purchase of Chilled Water................. 252,000 284,000 288,000 380,000 274,292 316,521 331,330 380,000
2307--Water & Sewer............................. 1,800,000 6,200,000 4,400,000 6,621,000 1,777,580 6,122,568 \1\4,109,0 6,621,000
00
2623--Coal...................................... 2,250,000 200,000 685,000 2,431,000 373,162 311,679 \2\ 1,321,0 2,431,000
00
2624--Oil....................................... 1,905,000 800,000 920,000 1,433,000 493,593 1,173,830 2,090,000 1,433,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 29,766,000 35,184,000 35,633,000 41,642,000 28,202,647 34,159,616 36,016,836 41,642,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount includes $1,776,941 for the payment of the 1990 water and sewer bill.
\2\ 6,000 tons in South Coal Yard used $275,000 in fiscal year 2001.
By law, the payment of water and sewer services are set by the
District of Columbia through the U.S. Treasury and adjusted in the
subsequent years for actual costs. In the past several years, the AOC
has not received the estimate to include in its budget request.
The Capitol Power Plant is a tri-fuel plant, which burns #2 fuel
oil, natural gas and coal. Each fuel unit can be converted to a common
unit of energy. The mix of fuels used varies based on the cost of the
fuel and the availability of equipment at the plant. Coal is our
primary fuel and historically is the cheapest fuel. However, the coal
boilers must be co-fired with gas in order to meet current emission
standards. We have the flexibility to burn oil or gas in one of three
large boilers and in one of the 4 smaller boilers.
The carryover of inventory on coal has some impact on the need to
purchase coal. In fiscal year 2001, the inventory of coal stored at the
coal yard and south of I-395, was burned (about 6,000 tons).
As a result of a consent decree in 1999 and 2000, the AOC was
prohibited from burning coal during the peak ozone (summer) months. As
a result gas and oil were used. It should also be pointed out, in 1999
when the fiscal year 2000 budget was being developed, the AOC had
planned to move away from coal as its primary fuel which is no longer
the case.
Congress has not imposed any regulations on the power plant which
increases our fuel cost. We procure our fuels through GSA.
SENATE RESTAURANT
Senator Durbin. There was a request in the budget for the
year 2000 for $750,000 for the Senate dining room, no request
in the year 2001. What is your request for the next fiscal
year?
Mr. Boertlein. This was replacement equipment, sir?
Senator Durbin. No. It was under the difference between the
request and recommendation in your budget. In the year 2001,
you asked for $750,000 in your request for the Senate
restaurants. In the previous year, you had asked for nothing
under that same heading. I just was curious. Do you ask each
year for a supplemental appropriation for the Senate
restaurant?
Mr. Boertlein. That is additional funding going to the
Senate restaurant that supplements the cash receipts.
Senator Durbin. One year it shows $750,000, the previous
year no request.
Mr. Boertlein. I think that, sir, has been in there for the
last several years at the $750,000 level.
Senator Durbin. This might have been a typo in my committee
report. As I said, it is dangerous to hand this to a Senator.
Mr. Boertlein. For this year, we are lowering that to
$650,000, but for 2000 and 2001, it was at the $750,000 level.
Prior to 1999, it was actually at $1,433,000. So, it was cut
dramatically in 1999.
Senator Durbin. Educate me, if you will, since I am new in
this position. Do we run the Senate dining room or does someone
else manage it?
Mr. Boertlein. Yes, we do manage that.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Durbin. I want to, in the closing minute or two
that we have here, say that the thing that I have learned very
quickly here is that your office is much more than an
Architect's office. It is probably more a management office.
There are some things that trouble me greatly about the
management of the Architect's office, but I want to be fair to
you. If you have made progress, I want to give you credit where
it is due, but if no progress is being made, I am going to be
very blunt about it.
I look at the progress on the Dirksen Building renovation,
and it looks like good work. I was in the middle of this on the
third floor just a few months ago, and I thought it was handled
well. I really think we are proud of the outcome and you should
be, too. Whoever is involved in managing that has done a good
job.
But it is certainly frightening to think that we would turn
over the Capitol Visitor Center to the same people who did the
Botanic Garden and wonder if they are going to miss it by a
year and a half or more in terms of the outcome. You talk about
the complexity of the Botanic Garden. Consider the complexity
of a project that costs 10 times that amount, that digs under
the east front of the Capitol and puts in a massive Visitor
Center, as you have shown me, with a lot of very technical
requirements involved in it that may even go beyond the Botanic
Garden.
As a result, I am anxious to see the Visitor Center go
forward, but I want to make certain that we do it with the best
management techniques, that when it is all over, we meet our
deadline in terms of when it will be completed, at the budget
level that we have programmed. And that the American people are
proud that we have done a good job for them. I look at the
Botanic Garden and worry that we may not be able to do that
unless we change our management approach to this project.
Mr. Hantman. We have four major initiatives, Mr. Chairman,
that will assure that this project is going to be handled in
quite a different way. One of those initiatives is a dedicated
project team, which has never happened at the Architect of the
Capitol before. We are hiring people who are being charged to
the project specifically. Our project manager we hired away
from the Pentagon who is doing a $500 million renovation over
there. These are people who are totally dedicated. A
procurement person, a budget officer, who are totally dedicated
to that project.
We also have hired a nationally recognized construction
management firm. With the help of the General Services
Administration, we went out nationally and we hired a
construction management firm who is going to be responsible for
budgets and schedules on a day-to-day basis working with us,
kind of a belt and suspenders type of approach.
We are also partnering with the General Accounting Office.
They are sitting in on all our meetings and if there is a
pothole in the road that they see, they are telling us about
that so we can get our policies and procedures straight so that
we can appropriately manage this project.
And the fourth one, Mr. Chairman, really deals with the
method of contracting. What we are talking about here is not
low bid. What we are talking here is best value to the
Government to make sure that past procedures, past
accomplishments, and the ability of people to perform is
paramount in our selecting a contractor to do the actual
construction.
These are all major and we can talk about them in greater
detail.
Senator Durbin. I will pursue that. I thank you for the
information you gave me the other day. I want to follow up on
it to make sure I understand it even more.
I have to run to a vote.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
At this point, I would like to make a note for the record
that Senator Mikulski of Maryland has a continuing interest in
your operations. I have been requested to submit several
questions on her behalf. Therefore, without objection, Senator
Mikulski's questions and your responses thereto will be
included in today's hearing record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Question. The Architect's office has had some management and
operational challenges over the years in such areas as human resources,
financial management, project management, and adapting to the
Congressional Accountability Act. You have recently made some personnel
and organizational changes.
What are the highest priority management challenges for the year
ahead and are you confident you have the right people and organization
in place to address your key challenges?
Answer. The highest priority management challenges facing the
Architect of the Capitol are to continue the advancement of our
organizational and business planning efforts. Through this process, the
Architect has been working with agency managers in setting
organizational priorities, developing a process for quantifiable
objectives and measures, and developing a process for monitoring
progress. In addition to maintaining a focus on facilities operations
and maintenance, the cleanliness of the buildings, and on improvements
to these services, we have set short and long term goals for:
--Fire, Health, Occupational, and Environmental Safety
--Improving Employee Support
--Effective Administration of Current Construction Initiatives
--Advancing Quality Assurance.
The continued development of our cadre of managers and supervisors
so that they can more effectively carry out their responsibilities in
support of the Congress and this agency is a priority. This includes
responsive management and development of their human resources;
advancing the fire and life safety programs of the agency; ensuring
that employees work safely so as to reduce the number of injuries in
the workplace; improved communications with employees.
Adequate space to house our employees is also an issue. We are
facing a shortage of office space for our staff. We have reviewed
available space, have re-configured office layouts to make the best use
of space, and have consolidated organizational units, but even with
these adjustments, we do not have the necessary space to properly house
the staff. We are currently looking at other options and will make
space recommendations in the near future.
Question. Over the past several years, Congress has passed
legislation such as the Government Performance and Results Act and the
Chief Financial Officers Act, with the intent of improving the overall
management and efficiency of the federal government. Some legislative
agencies, while not required to, have elected to implement these laws
because they view them as prudent management practices. Is the AOC
following these management ``best practices?'' If not, what management
practices are you following to ensure that your organization is
efficiently and effectively spending taxpayer dollars?
Answer. The AOC is in the process of developing goal setting plans
which will enable it to follow industry ``best practices''. These plans
are being developed in various areas of the agency.
The AOC is in the process of hiring a Chief Financial Officer and
has funds included in the fiscal year 2002 request to hire a CPA firm
to perform an ``audit'' of pro forma financial statements. While this
is not a formal audit, it will prepare the AOC for its first true audit
that is expected for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. Because
the agency's new financial management system is being implemented in a
phased approach, this is the earliest an actual audit can be performed.
WORKER SAFETY
Question. What types of accidents are recurring routinely and are
you conducting root cause analysis to determine why? How much is
included in your budget for worker safety and how does that compare to
fiscal year 2001? How much is included for worker safety-related
training? When will you have a strategic plan, including cost
estimates, in place for addressing worker health and safety issues?
Answer. The AOC total injury and illness rate is unacceptably high.
Back injuries represent over 20 percent of all AOC injuries; upper
extremity injuries (fingers, hands, and arms) are the second
predominant type of injury; followed by lower extremity injuries (legs,
ankles, and knees); and head and eye injuries are next. Back, arm leg,
and knee injuries typically include strains, sprains, twists, and
twinges. Finger and hand injuries are typically cuts, bruises, and
dislocations. Head injuries typically consist of bumps, cuts, and
foreign material in the eye.
The AOC workforce is almost 80 percent blue collar; many jobs
entail physical labor. Laborers, custodial workers, electricians, and
food service preparation workers had the highest numbers of injuries in
fiscal year 2000. This is consistent with other organization's injury
experience We must create a ``safety first'' attitude within the AOC.
Investigations of worker injuries are conducted but the existing
process does not include root cause analysis or sharing of lessons
learned across the Agency. Emphasis to date has been on management of
the injury once it has occurred; we need to focus on prevention. We
recognize this weakness and are in the process of revising our injury
and illness investigation process; advancing it to include reporting
and investigation of near misses, root cause analysis, development of
corrective measures, and sharing of lessons learned. Investigation
process training will then be provided to safety committee members,
safety specialists, and supervisors.
The AOC capital amounts include the following projects related to
worker safety in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002:
Projects relating to Worker Safety
Fiscal year 2001:
Roof Fall Protection, Capitol Building.................... $555,000
Roof Fall Protection, Hart Senate Office Building......... 1,678,000
Roof Fall Protection, Design, House Office Building....... 123,000
Emergency Shoring & Repairs to Tunnels, Power Plant....... 200,000
Replace Partition Supports, JMMB.......................... 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,756,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2002 request:
Implementation of Safety Programs......................... 450,000
Upgrade Lawnmower Shop Ventilation........................ 230,000
Renovations to USCP Dignitary Protection.................. 210,000
House Roof Fall Protection................................ 2,444,000
Tunnel Emergency Shoring & Repairs........................ 100,000
Ventilation in Coal Bunkers............................... 56,000
Replace Partition Supports, JMMB.......................... 300,000
Replace Compact Stacks Safety, JMMB....................... 300,000
Library Roof Fall Protection.............................. 1,778,000
Botanic Garden Administration Building.................... 200,000
Botanic Garden Roof Fall Protection....................... 131,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 6,199,000
The AOC operating amounts in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002
that relates to worker safety are detailed below.
--Monitoring, Publications, Medical Surveillance & Services, from
$234,000 to $350,000;
--Safety apparel and supplies, from $156,000 to $172,000;
--Training related to safety, from $312,000 to $350,000;
--Employee safety items such as gas detectors, respirator, harnesses,
cones & barriers, welding masks, etc. are purchased and charged
to general supplies accounts;
--Safety items for temporary project employees are charged to the
associated project.
We have recently developed a high level 5-year Occupational Health
and Safety (OHS) plan to meet our injury reduction goal (10 percent
reduction per year for each of the next 5 years) and established the
following priorities:
--Hiring required staff (Central & Jurisdictional recruitments are in
process),
--Development of job hazards analysis process and policy (underway)
and performance of job hazards analysis for all work (to be
completed fiscal year 2002) so that hazards can be identified
and eliminated or controlled,
--Improvement of the injury/illness investigation process (underway)
to include root cause analysis and implementation of corrective
actions across the Agency to prevent recurrence,
--Development and inspection and audit process such that we
critically evaluate our work and identify and correct
deficiencies (to be completed in fiscal year 2002), and
--Development, Approval, and Implementation of 41 Safety Programs
(implementation of the last program will be completed in fiscal
year 2005).
The detailed requirements of safety program implementation have yet
to be defined. We will submit a 5-year plan with specific project
funding requests with our fiscal year 2004 budget request.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Question. Can you give us an update on the Capitol Visitor Center,
including the current cost estimate and a description of what that
price includes. What are the biggest challenges you face in completing
this project on-time and within budget?
Answer. The AOC Design Team is currently in the Construction
Document Phase and 50 percent complete documents were submitted to the
AOC for review at the end of April 2001. Due to the complexities of the
design, particularly in the interface with the Capitol Building, a 75
percent Submission has been added to the schedule for AOC review. The
75 percent Submission is due in the beginning of August 2001, with 100
percent Documents due in mid November 2001.
Two separate estimates are currently underway based on the 50
percent complete construction documents. The AOC is working with the
Design Team and the Construction Manager to reconcile these estimates
to ensure that both estimates correctly reflect the project scope and
design intent. Once the estimates have been reconciled, the AOC will
consider a range of value-engineering options that can reduce the
estimated cost without the affecting the quality or efficiency of the
project. The AOC remains confident that the CVC project can be built
within the original $265 million budget.
The cost estimate produced at the end of the Design Development
Phase was within 2 percent of the $265 million project budget, which by
standard construction industry practice is ``on budget'' for that stage
of the process. Two separate estimates--one by the Design Team and the
other by the Construction Manager--were produced in June 2001 based on
the 50 percent complete construction documents. The AOC is working with
the Design Team and the Construction Manager to reconcile these
estimates to ensure a true ``apples to apples'' comparison and to
arrive at the most accurate numbers possible. The approximate range of
total project cost based on the latest drafts of these estimates is
from $260 to $280 million. It is expected that these estimates will be
further reduced during the reconciliation process as the scope of the
project is further refined. In addition, approximately $20 million in
potential cost savings that can be achieved without sacrifice in
quality of efficiency have already been identified in the higher of the
two estimates. The AOC remains confident that the CVC project can be
built with the original $265 million budget.
The project remains on schedule. Assuming timely approvals and
availability of full funding, the CVC will be completed in the summer
of 2005 with partial completion in support of the inaugural slated for
January 2005. Pre-construction work is slated to begin this fall with
tree preservation and utility relocations. On the advice of the
Construction Manager, the utility pre-construction work has been
expanded to include all utility relocations that will be necessary
before heavy construction begins. (The original schedule called for
much of this work to be done with the heavy construction as part of the
general construction contract.) Final drawings for the pre-construction
package are due in July, with utility relocation work anticipated to
begin in the late fall of this year (2001). Construction documents for
the general construction contract will be complete by December 2001.
Procurement will take approximately 6 months, putting the start of the
heavy construction around June 2002.
The design for the Capitol Visitor Center calls for a three-story
underground structure to be built below the East Plaza. The design of
the CVC has been conceived as an extension of the Capitol, an extension
that will enhance the experience of the millions of annual Capitol
visitors, providing them with greater comfort and accessibility, as
well as new educational opportunities that currently do not exist. In
addition to food service facilities, restrooms and gift shops, the CVC
will provide approximately 20,000 square feet of museum quality
exhibition space and two 250-seat orientation theaters that will be
designed to inform visitors about the Capitol and provide resources on
the workings and history of Congress and the legislative process. The
project also includes a new monumental stair and elevators inside the
East Front Extension which will significantly improve accessibility for
visitors to the Crypt, Rotunda, and Gallery Levels of the Capitol
particularly for those persons with disabilities. In addition, the
project includes a 450-seat Congressional Auditorium, constituent
assembly rooms, an underground service tunnel and loading dock, and
approximately 85,000 square feet of unfinished shell space both of the
House and Senate sides for future finishing and use by Congress. The
total square footage for the entire project is approximately 580,000
square feet.
The biggest challenges we face in completing this project on-time
and within budget are: (1) Timely decision making for design, funding
and construction issues; (2) Project funding and procurement
procedures; and, (3) Conflict between construction and on-going Capitol
operations.
Question. What procedures have been implemented to ensure that
schedule delays, deliverables or cost overruns are identified early--
for this project and all projects? Has the schedule slipped from the
original schedule? If so, please explain.
Answer. To help guard against schedule delays, cost overruns, and
other problems, the AOC has hired the Gilbane Building Company, a
nationally recognized firm that has served as an owner's agent on such
projects as the Air and Space Museum, Union Station, and the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. Gilbane was selected through a competitive process
conducted with the help of the General Services Administration. Gilbane
has been an integral part of the Project Team since January 2001; their
input in such areas as logistics, constructibility, and technical
support has provided valuable insight to the AOC and its consultant
team. With the recommendation of Gilbane, a 75 percent submission has
been added to the Construction Document schedule in order to allow for
more detailed documentation and more thorough review of the work that
will occur within the East Front Extension. This additional advance
planning will reduce the potential delays and cost overruns in this
highly complex part of the CVC project. Based on their extensive
experience with large construction projects, Gilbane has also
recommended pulling all of the utility relocation work out of the
general contract for construction and putting it into an expanded pre-
construction package as a way to reduce the risk to the AOC. (If
unforeseen conditions are encountered, they impact only the pre-
construction contract and not the much larger general construction
contract.) Furthermore, this strategy provides an unencumbered site for
the general contractor, enabling faster mobilization and a more rapid
start for the major construction. Construction Documents for the single
pre-construction utility package will be finished in July 2001, with
construction beginning in the fall. Construction Documents for the
general construction contract will be complete by December 2001.
Procurement will take approximately 6 months, putting the commencement
of the heavy construction around June 2002, the same time that was
anticipated by the 1999 Revalidation Study. Gilbane is confident that
there should be no change in the completion date--the facility should
still be completed in the summer of 2005 with partial completion in
support of the inaugural in January 2005.
Question. Do you anticipate additional appropriated funding will be
needed? When are funds needed in order to meet the current schedule?
Answer. The project budget is $265 million, of which $100 million
has already been appropriated. Some portion of the remaining $165
million will need to be appropriated, depending on how much money is
available from the Capitol Preservation Fund and how much is raised by
the Fund for the Capitol Visitor Center and by commemorative coin
sales. Regarding timing, full funding will need to be in place before a
bid package for the general construction contract is released in
December of this year.
Question. When do you plan to award a construction contract? Do you
plan to complete and award a single general construction contract? If
not, what alternatives are under consideration?
Answer. It is anticipated that major construction contract will be
awarded around May of 2002. That date is based on a 6 month procurement
process which should begin in December of this year. As described
earlier, the AOC plans to complete utility and site preparation work
prior to the start of the heavy construction. The AOC has also begun
discussions with Gilbane regarding all available options for procuring
the general construction contract. The discussions have included
methods for selecting a contractor or contractors such as best value/
source selection, options for packaging work such as issuing a separate
foundation/structure contract, and other procedures that are considered
the best practices within the construction industry.
Question. What were the results of the 50 percent review of the
construction documents for completeness, accuracy and reasonableness?
Answer. The 50 percent documents were submitted on April 27, 2001
and were reviewed by the AOC staff for design intent. They were
determined to be appropriately complete, accurate, and reasonable for
that stage of development in the project. Gilbane is currently
performing a technical review of the 50 percent submittal. They will
also perform a ``back check'' to make sure that all changes/comment do
get incorporated into the documents.
STAFFING
Question. The budget indicates it includes funds for 48 additional
staff. What is your current on-board staffing, and what are you
proposing to increase it to next year?
Answer. The current on-board head count for the AOC is 2,018,
including part-time, temporary, Davis-Bacon and summer employees. An
additional 132 are paid from the revolving fund of the Senate
Restaurant.
The projection for full-time equivalent (FTE) employment for fiscal
year 2001 is estimated at 1,781. Each FTE is equivalent to 2,080 work
hours. It is anticipated that 1,952 FTE will be realized in fiscal year
2002, which includes an additional 48 positions that funds have been
requested to fill in fiscal year 2002.
Question. With the additional staff, will you be at the optimal
staffing level, or do you project the need for outyear increases? What
is the basis for this estimate?
Answer. The increase of 48 positions in the fiscal year 2002 budget
addresses only the most critical positions of a much longer pending
list. It is anticipated that outyear increases in staffing will be
required. AOC managers have requested an additional 180 positions that
have been deferred. New facilities (such as the reopening of the
Botanic Garden and the opening of the National Garden), as well as the
increased staffing requirements relating to compliance with various
legislation, indicates that additional staff is needed. The impact of
implementation of new programs, such as 41 safety-related efforts,
requires human resources funding.
Question. Has the AOC conducted a human capital study to analyze
what the optimal staffing level should be?
Answer. No. As part of our business planning process we are in the
process of identifying the most effective and optimum staffing levels
required to provide excellent levels of service to the Congress.
BOTANIC GARDEN
Question. I understand the Botanic Garden is a year-and-a-half
behind schedule, meaning it will not open until November, 2001. What
has caused this significant delay, who was responsible, and why weren't
we informed of the delays early on?
Answer. The Renovation of the Conservatory of the United States
Botanic Garden was originally scheduled for construction completion in
September 2000. The original schedule indicated that plants provided by
the Contractor would also have been installed at that time. The
installation of the rest of the plants was to be done by the Botanic
Garden staff and that was scheduled to continue for another four to six
months. A formal public opening would have occurred in March 2001,
although scheduled tours and events would have been available from
December 2000.
As the Committee is aware, this project renovates an historic,
unique and monumental building. Renovation projects, by their nature,
are subject to delays that are not encountered in new construction.
Many unforeseen delays have been experienced during the course of this
project. Delays were due to events such as unknown site conditions,
including poor subsurface soil and asbestos that were not previously
known to exist.
Progressive discovery of unforeseen structural conditions also
complicated the construction sequence. For example, upon removal of the
brick enclosure around the roof and trusses, excessive corrosion
required the addition of brackets to ensure structural integrity of the
roof, adding time and cost. Application of a state-of-the-art glazing
system to an existing structure required extensive redesign to maintain
the historic profiles. The facility was not previously air-conditioned,
and all new mechanical space is subterranean. Subterranean space did
not formerly exist. The new mechanical and air conditioning systems,
installed below grade to maintain the historical look of the existing
building, required many days of additional on-site coordination
including adjustments and redesigns to accommodate existing foundations
and future plantings. When actual components are procured, only then
can the final coordination occur to fit the configured reconstructed
spaces within the existing foundations. Working under the existing
structure in tightly confined spaces also limited the manpower and size
of equipment normally utilized for this size project.
During this process, this agency continually urged the contractor
for greater coordination and more qualified technical supervision. In
addition, sub-contractor manpower was noticeably deficient in all
trades. Continued discussion on these issues proved pointless and a
Cure Notice was issued in February 2001. This action brought about the
needed changes in management and staffing required for a project of
this complexity. With this revised staffing in place, substantial
completion of the construction is scheduled for September, 2001.
The reality of today's construction market is also a factor that
cannot be ignored. Sub-contractors are finding it impossible to locate
qualified tradesmen to staff their jobs. Often times, workers are
pulled from one job to complete another at the expense of the first
job. Larger projects are siphoning work force resources, thereby
creating problems for the smaller projects with less profitable price
tags.
In addition to unforeseeable construction conditions and contractor
management concerns that delayed this project, other design problems
became apparent during construction. The associate architect engaged in
the design of the renovation did not respond expeditiously to AOC
requests for re-design. This office will follow up on these issues and
proceed with any claim that may be necessary.
The Botanic Garden Conservatory Renovation Project has included in
its budget a 10 percent contingency. To date, the changes to the
project fall within this contingency. It should be noted, however, that
this office has been placed on notice that the Contractor will pursue
claims for additional money and time as a result of delays. We intend
to vigorously defend the Government's rights in these issues and to
minimize the impact on the project.
RENOVATION OF THE BOTANIC GARDEN CONSERVATORY
[Status Reports With Reference to Completion Delays]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Transmittal Letter Period of Report Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/11/2000...................... December 1999.......... First mention in report that there were problems and
completion may be after the contract completion date.
3/6/2000....................... January 2000........... Advised that Palm House and other areas would not be
ready by September 2000.
4/3/2000....................... N/A.................... Letter to Chairman Bennett forwarding AOC's 4/3/2000
response to Chairman Taylor's 3/21/2000 letter on
project status. This letter spelled out some of the
problems that had been encountered and reiterated
that the project would not be complete by September
5, 2000.
5/5/2000....................... March 2000............. Advised that we directed Clark Construction to
complete all areas but Palm House and site work by 12/
30/2000 and those areas to be completed by 3/31/2001.
5/25/2000...................... April 2000............. Reiterated dates from previous report.
6/19/2000...................... May 2000............... Transmittal letter explained changes to shade cloth
system, fogging system and deletion of the work in
the two courtyards. Report reiterated dates from the
previous report.
10/10/2000..................... September 2000......... Report advised that contractor had indicated that all
work may not be done by 3/31/2001.
2/27/2001...................... January 2001........... Advised that Cure Notice had been issued and planning
for a September 2001 reopening was underway.
4/30/2001...................... April 2001............. Report goes thru status and indicates that public
opening is being targeted for November 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are you confident you now have the systems in place such
that these sorts of delays and communication problems will not occur in
the future?
Answer. We are moving to implement systems to preclude these sort
of problems in the future. However, construction delays are an inherent
potential hazard of the business. In some cases they are unavoidable
despite every effort taken to avoid them. However, the AOC is, and
continually will be, striving to improve the management of all
projects.
As to lessons learned, the Botanic Garden Renovation Project has
been selected as one of the AOC case studies in the new Best Practices/
Project Delivery Process. At the completion of the project, a complete
review of the project will be conducted to determine what went wrong
and what can be done better. The history of this project confirms the
need to continue with the new and improved review processes.
At the Committee's direction, the AOC has implemented the 100
percent design process for projects so that firm cost estimate is
available for project construction. The Conservatory project did not
follow this model because it preceded the 100 percent design process
requirement.
The extended design period also had an adverse impact on this
project, as it would on any construction project. Several years passed
from the time of the design to the receipt of funds and construction.
During the interim, various members of the design consultant team were
replaced; various construction scenarios were mandated, the drawings
revised accordingly and then changed back; changes in materials and
technology were incorporated as well as some program changes. These
issues adversely affected the quality of the final bid documents. The
schedule for restarting the project was overly optimistic. The time
necessary to get the project ``back up to speed'' after the interim
hold was extensive. During this time, construction for the Botanic
Garden project was not anticipated to be forthcoming, therefore other
projects were prioritized and commenced. Also, in hindsight, the
staffing that was placed on the project should have been augmented
sooner. Finally, the Contractor's management staff was, in our opinion,
initially not up to the task of this project and this had a major
impact on the construction process. The Contractor has since added
experienced personnel to the project and the work is progressing.
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET
Question. Your capital budget is based on a 5-year plan. Last year,
you provided us with a 5-year budget plan for fiscal year 2001 through
fiscal year 2005 which totaled $666 million. This year, your budget for
fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005, including those funds
appropriated last year, totals almost $800 million. What accounts for
this very large increase--20 percent--over last year's 5-year estimate?
Answer. Nine projects account for the most of the increase over
what was reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget; however, there were
some decreases, although relatively minor in nature. All of the
increases were related to items that were reflected as out-year items
either in the 2001 budget or the 2002 budget. The shift from equipment
replacement in the East Refrigeration Plant to the expansion of the
West Refrigeration plant accounted for $33 million. The inclusion of
multi-media improvements in both House and Senate committee rooms added
$19 million. There were eight cyclical maintenance projects in various
House Office Buildings that added $33 million. Utility tunnel work
added $15 million. The construction estimate for the proposed garage on
Square 724 increased by $15.5 million as capacity was maximized,
renovations to the House East and West Underground garages increased by
$11 million, and repairs to the Rayburn garage increased by $6.4
million. The estimate for the LOC's Copyright Deposit Facility
increased by $12 million. All of these projects contributed to the
overall increase in the capital budget estimate.
Question. Should we expect the 5-year plan for fiscal year 2002-
fiscal year 2006 presented in this year's budget will grow
significantly beyond the current estimate of $906 million?
Answer. The objective of the 5-year plan is to give the AOC
oversight committees an idea of the projects, construction and required
resources that are seen on the horizon. In many cases, the reflected
cost of those projects that are projected several years out are very
rough estimates. Until studies are done to identify the scope of the
problem or schematic designs are completed, we realize that many of
these numbers are not much more than best guesses. However, as projects
get close to the budget year and studies, and designs are completed,
these estimates will become more realistic. There is no doubt that
additional projects will likely be identified by both the AOC and our
clients. There is also the dilemma that occurs when a seemingly simple
solution expands with further scope investigation. The AOC will make
every effort to provide the best estimates available, although out-year
estimate increases are likely to occur.
Question. How meaningful is this 5-year plan when it differs so
radically from last year's plan?
Answer. The AOC believes that the 5-plan is useful in providing the
oversight committees with an idea of future capital requirements.
Estimating projects, especially renovation projects, that are 3, 4, or
5 years on the horizon cannot be done to a high level of accuracy. The
out-year estimates are considered ``place holders'' until studies and
designs can be completed. The out-year estimates are not intended to
reflect the final cost of the proposed project. This information is
intended to form a basis of future workload and resource requirements.
Question. What major capital projects should we be expecting in the
out-years?
Answer. The AOC has identified 45 out-year projects that are
estimated to each cost $4 million or more. Some of the most significant
are: Upgrade Building Systems in the Capitol; Upgrade the Cable
Television System; Construct a Garage on Square 724; Construction of a
USCP Command Center, Replace Windows and Doors in the RSOB and the
CHOB; Upgrade HVAC Systems in the RHOB and CHOB; Repairs to the East
and West House Underground Garages; Utility Tunnel Modernization;
Expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant; and Construct a Copyright
Deposit Facility for the Library.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Question. You are implementing a new financial management system
and have included $2.1 million in your budget request to complete Phase
2 and for Phase 3. Could you give us a status report of implementation
of the new system?
Answer. The Financial Management System (FMS) project is the
implementation of a modern federally compliant financial management
system for the AOC. An FMS office staffed with 5 systems accountants
was established to implement and maintain the system. The FMS project
is being performed in a phased approach as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase FMS Module Scheduled Implementation Date Estimated Funding Required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1General Ledger 10/01/2000..................... $1,200,000 funded
2Base System Modules: 03/01/2002..................... $1,475,000 funded; $1,356,000 fiscal year
Budget Execution 2002 request
Purchasing
Accounts Payable
Disbursements
Accounts Receivable
3Contracting 10/01/2002..................... $720,000 fiscal year 2002 request
4Fixed Assets 04/01/2003..................... $671,000 unfunded
5Inventory 10/01/2003..................... $972,000 unfunded
-----------------------------------------------
Total ............................... $6,394,000 total of 5 phases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1st phase of the project (Standard General Ledger) was
successfully implemented on schedule on October 1, 2000. The FMS
project is now working on the 2nd phase of the project to implement the
other base modules of the system. Phase 2 is scheduled to ``go live''
on March 1, 2002.
The FMS system will also be integrated with the following other AOC
systems:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Integrated Data Scheduled Implementation Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Finance Center Payroll System Payroll costs by employee Completed 10/01/2000
(NFC). and organiza- tion.
Project Information Center System (PIC).. Project budgets, and In process for 3/1/2002
obligations.
Computer Assisted Facilities Management Work Order costing.......... To be determined (unfunded)
System (CAFM).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Over the past several years, numerous federal agencies
have been working towards implementing new financial management
systems. However, time and time again we hear about these projects
having cost overruns, schedule delays, and failed implementations.
These failed system implementation efforts have cost taxpayers billions
of dollars. What processes have you put in place to ensure this does
not occur?
Answer. The FMS Office has and will be implementing various
processes to ensure the FMS implementation is a success. These
processes include the following:
--Working with the General Accounting Office (GAO) to ensure the FMS
Office complies with project management best practices.
--Working with the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council
(LBFMC) for guidance and review of the FMS Implementation Plan
and Status Reports.
--Development of a Configuration Management Plan and Risk Management
Plan to identify potential risks and identify alternative
solutions.
--The AOC is currently in the process of hiring a Quality Assurance
Specialist to develop a Quality Assurance Plan, and review all
FMS testing plans and procedures.
--Extensive system testing of the FMS software will be performed to
ensure functionality will meet AOC needs and comply with
Federal standards.
--A Pilot Test, with AOC configured data will be performed to ensure
the expected results are met.
--User Acceptance Testing will be performed to ensure system users
will be able to perform their jobs on a daily basis.
--The FMS Office is making every effort to maintain costs by not
customizing the Commercial-Off-the-Shelf software (COTS). By
maintaining the baseline version, AOC will be able to obtain
new releases of the software at minimal cost.
Question. Is the AOC ready for a full-scope financial statement
audit? If not, when will it be ready and what still needs to be done to
get ready? Once completed, will the AOC's financial statements conform
to federal accounting principles? If not, why not?
Answer. It is anticipated, based on the current FMS implementation
plan, that the AOC would be ready for a full-scope financial audit at
the end of fiscal year 2003. This would provide the AOC an entire
fiscal year on the new system. AOC is planning a financial audit based
on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the same standards
currently utilized by the House of Representatives. Funds are included
in the fiscal year 2002 request to hire a CPA firm perform an ``audit''
of pro forma financial statements. While this is not considered an
audit, it will prepare the AOC for it first true audit. Because the
agency's new financial management system is being implemented in a
phased approach this is the soonest an actual audit can be performed.
Question. Do you believe AOC should use full-cost accounting for
its projects, as is typical in private sector construction, to provide
Congress with a true picture of the full cost of each project? If not,
why not?
Answer. Yes, the AOC believes that it should use full-cost
accounting for its projects. However, such an approach is one that
would require additional efforts which are well beyond the current,
limited resources of the AOC. Existing financial policies and
operations would need to be greatly modified and expanded to foster the
necessary environment to support such an enhanced, more disciplined
reporting environment. Additional personnel staffing, mostly in the
financial area, would also be required to lead the implementation of
the required cost accounting techniques and methodologies. In addition,
an agency-wide cost management philosophy, with supporting policies and
procedures, would be required to begin moving the agency towards the
type of environment necessary to support such project reporting.
In addition, AOC supporting systems requirements, for both
financial and mixed systems, would need to be further refined to
address such an environment. The implementation of both the CAFM and
FMS systems by the AOC will help to provide much of the needed base to
move in such a direction. However, a more focused and concerted effort,
obviously with the necessary supporting resources and other type of
support, would be required to completely realize a robust, full-cost
accounting AOC-wide environment. The AOC's most optimistic projection
for accomplishing such a worthy goal, assuming the required resources
are forthcoming, would be at least five to six years in the future.
Question. What is the status of hiring a chief financial officer--I
understand the job was advertised in September--what's the problem with
filling the position?
Answer. The recruitment of a Chief Financial Officer/Budget
Officer, which was first posted in August, 2000, has been difficult.
Existing legislation gave authority and set the salary only for a
Budget Officer which necessitated its being coupled with the CFO
position. However, the combination of two executive financial position
did not work well in the recruitment process. Although the duties of
each position fall within the financial areas the actual
responsibilities of each are very diverse and distinct. To complicate
matters, the legislative pay limitation discouraged potential qualified
applicants.
To address this situation, the AOC has reissued a vacancy
announcement for the position of Chief Financial Officer, at a salary
level of $120,261-$125,883 in the hope that required pay flexibility
will be granted. The posting for this position will close on August 3,
2001. The extensive duties and responsibilities of the Budget Office
will remain separate with that position.
FIRE SAFETY SUPPLEMENTAL
Question. What is the status of the $17 million in supplemental
funding for fire safety projects? How much remains to be obligated and
what is the schedule for obligating the balance? When will all projects
be completed?
Answer. All projects within the fiscal year 2000 Emergency Fire
Supplemental funding, with the exception of one, are scheduled to be
obligated by fiscal year 2005 with completion in the same fiscal year.
The remaining project, ``Smoke Detectors and Fire Alarm System, Capitol
Building'', is scheduled to be obligated through fiscal year 2007. This
schedule may be accelerated based on space availability. The majority
of funds, 79 percent of the total amounts appropriated, will be
obligated by the end of fiscal year 2002. The table below shows the
status of funds compared to the obligation plan. As of June, 22, 2001,
the AOC has obligated over 55 percent of the fiscal year 2001 planned
amount and expects to award the full fiscal year 2001 planned amount by
the end of the fiscal year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal Current Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2005
Appropriation Amount Year 2001 Funds Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 and Beyond
Planned Obligated Planned Planned Planned Planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capitol Buildings..... $7,039,000 $1,595,120 $685,821 $2,023,480 $1,071,000 $866,000 $1,483,400
Total Senate Office 2,314,000 1,612,330 671,362 701,713 0 0 0
Buildings..................
Total House Office Buildings 4,213,000 2,890,516 1,587,440 1,218,570 0 0 0
Total Capitol Power Plant... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 0
Total Library Buildings & 3,885,000 2,449,769 2,024,705 1,280,231 155,000 0 0
Grounds....................
Total Botanic Garden........ 26,000 21,000 0 .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Items....... 17,480,000 8,571,735 4,972,328 5,223,994 1,226,000 866,000 1,483,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER TEMPORARY VISITOR FACILITY
Question. The Congress and this subcommittee are concerned that
visitors to the Capitol during construction of the project receive
appropriate accommodations. In this regard, please discuss the plans
for visitors during construction, particularly: The route being planned
for visitors to access the Capitol, including changes in the tour route
within the Capitol. Access to the Capitol for persons in need of
assistance. The location of facilities for visitors including security
screening, restrooms, tour information, and commencement of the tours.
The schedule for completing the temporary facility including final
design decisions, congressional input, procurement of construction
services, beginning construction, and completion of the facility.
Answer. The AOC Design Team is also concerned that visitors to the
Capitol during construction of the CVC receive appropriate
accommodations. To that end, the team has worked very closely with Ted
Daniels from the Capitol Guide Service, Insp. Marsha Krug and Capt.
Michael Preloh of the U.S. Capitol Police to develop a plan for a
temporary visitor screening facility. These plans have received a
favorable review from the Capitol Police Board and are undergoing
further development and review by the appropriate authorities.
The route that visitors will take to the Capitol during CVC
construction will be from the west. Tour buses will drop visitors off
at the circle on First St, SW, where they will queue on the walks at
the base of the hill on the South-West Drive. Capitol Guides will bring
groups of approximately 50 people at a time (similar to how it works at
the Rotunda entrance now) up the walkway along the South-West Drive to
a temporary ramp that leads up to the lower South Terrace, just west of
the Cameron Elm. (This new temporary ramp would be built to create an
accessible route to the South Terrace that is separate from the narrow
sidewalk used for Members, Staff, and business visitor traffic heading
for the South Door and Carriageway Door.) From the ramp, the Guides
will lead visitors to a temporary screening facility which will be
built on the West Terrace at the door into the connecting corridor
between the House wing and the center section of the Capitol (next to
the statue of Jack Swigert). The tour route inside the Capitol will
need to be modified since construction inside the East Front Extension
will make that area inaccessible to visitors. The Capitol Guide Service
and the Capitol Police are working together directly to determine how
the route will need to be modified.
Persons in need of assistance will be accommodated with motorized
carts (similar to those used in airports except that these will be
equipped so that wheel chairs can be rolled on). These carts are small
enough that they can be driven on the existing walkways with minimal
modifications, although construction of a separate temporary cart path
may be recommended. Individuals will be picked up at the bottom of the
hill on South-West Drive and will be dropped off at the base of the new
ramp to be constructed west of the Cameron Elm. The ramp will be
constructed in accordance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
guidelines so that all visitors will be able to make their way up the
ramp to the South Terrace and around to the new temporary screening
facility. New accessible ramps will also be constructed between the
Lower and Upper Terraces and then inside the temporary screening
facility so that these individuals can easily make their way into the
Capitol unimpeded.
The design of the temporary screening facility includes
accommodations for 3 screening stations. Enough interior space beyond
those screening stations will be provided for the Guides to comfortably
assemble approximately two tour groups for orientation before they
enter the Capitol itself. Also inside this facility will be a small
office for the Capitol Police, and two offices for the Capitol Guides
since their current offices will be removed as part of the East Front
modifications. The current design also calls for a second temporary
structure to be built on the opposite side at the Senate connecting
corridor through which visitors will exit the Capitol. Restrooms will
be provided in the exit facility because the Crypt-level restrooms in
the East Front will be demolished when that area is under construction.
The design for the exterior route and the temporary screening
structures has already received a favorable review from the Capitol
Police Board. It will be presented to the staff of the Capitol
Preservation Commission in the next few weeks. Construction Documents
for these facilities have already begun. We anticipate that
construction of the facilities will begin in December of this year,
with completion in April of 2002. Transition from the east side of the
Capitol to the west is anticipated to occur by June 2002 when the
general construction of the CVC is slated to begin.
Question. The subcommittee is equally concerned that the planning
of this facility incorporate the needs of the Capitol Guide Service.
How have Capitol Guide Service personnel been incorporated into the
planning for this facility?
Answer. The Capitol Guide Service and the Capitol Police have been
involved throughout the development of this design for temporary
visitor facilities and both agencies strongly support the proposed
solution. Four options for the visitor screening facility and more than
eight options for the visitor access path were considered in the design
process.
PROGRESS TOWARD CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Question. The report that you issued at the conclusion of the 1999
revalidation study indicated that construction of the Capitol Visitor
Center would begin in mid-2001. The subcommittee is interested in when
construction will commence, the cause and effect of any slippage from
the anticipated commencement of construction in mid-2001, and the
impact of any slippage on the facility being operational for the
January 2005 presidential ceremonies. What is the status of procurement
planning for this work and when do you expect construction to begin?
What are the 3 most significant risks today for the successful,
timely completion of the CVC? What can the CPC do to mitigate these
risks?
Answer. When the schedule published in the 1999 Revalidation Study
referred to construction commencement occurring in mid 2001, it was
referring to very limited number of pre-construction activities (tree
preservation and limited utility relocations) which needed to be
complete before the large general contract for construction could
begin. At the time it was anticipated that the general construction
contract would be awarded in January 2002, and that the first six
months would be devoted primarily to mobilization and additional
utility relocations. Heavy construction then would begin sometime
around June 2002, with the CVC being operational in January 2005. On
the advice of the Gilbane Building Company, the Construction Manager
hired by the AOC in January 2001, the strategy has shifted. The tree
preservation pre-construction contract will be awarded in the fall of
this year as planned; the contract is currently in the process of being
procured. However, the pre-construction work is being expanded to
include completion of all utility relocations before the general
construction contract starts. The advantage of this approach is that it
helps limit the risk to the AOC. If unforeseen conditions are
encountered, they impact only the pre-construction contract and not the
much larger general construction contract. Furthermore, this strategy
provides an unencumbered site for the general contractor, enabling
faster mobilization and a more rapid start for the major construction.
Construction Documents for the single pre-construction utility package
will be finished in July, with construction beginning in the fall.
Construction Documents for the general construction contract will be
complete by this December. Procurement will take approximately 6
months, putting the commencement of the heavy construction around June
2002, the same time that was anticipated by the 1999 Revalidation
Study. We expect no change in the completion date--the facility should
still be operational in January 2005.
The three most significant risks today, with the proposed
mitigation actions, are:
1. Risk: Timely decision making. Mitigation: Redefine process,
empower AOC's CVC team to make the maximum number of decisions related
to administering the design and construction process, create and
document a hierarchy to the decision process. Establish a subcommittee
of the CPC Leadership (perhaps a ``Building subcommittee'') to meet
weekly to help frame solutions to more difficult issues; then establish
a monthly reporting system to the CPC Leadership staff that reports the
actions taken to date on the project, as well as any established
approvals needed in advance of a decision.
2. Risk: Project Funding and Procurement Procedures. Mitigation:
Fully fund the CVC project to allow planning and resources to be
committed to completion. We are planning a streamlined procurement
process that allows contracts and change orders to be finalized in the
shortest amount of time, a recommendation that is supported by our
Construction Manager (Gilbane).
3. Risk: Conflict between construction and on-going Capitol
operations. Mitigation: We are planning to phase construction to allow
Capitol access, which will minimize impact; we are planning a program
to increase communication with building occupants with our project
planning and progress, since everyone associated with the Capitol needs
to understand the construction impact from the project, including
potential noise and disruption. We plan to centralize communication if
something must be shut down during construction and to establish who is
authorized to make the call, establish who to call, and protocol that
will define and authorize cost and schedule impact with the CVC project
team.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDIES
Question. The design and engineering obligation plan for the CVC
Project included funds to perform various studies.
Has the AOC and their contractors started studying pedestrian
traffic issues, vehicular traffic issues, and related parking issues,
and if so, when did this work begin? When does the AOC expect these
studies to be completed? Are these studies on schedule, and if not,
why?
Answer. The AOC has started studying pedestrian traffic issues,
vehicular traffic issues, and related parking issues. These were
started March 2001. The pedestrian traffic study has been completed; a
preliminary vehicular traffic study was completed May 2000, a more
detailed study will commence later this year, through our Construction
Manager, to study and recommend vehicular movement related to
construction activity on the Capitol grounds for the CVC. This study
will focus on construction vehicles entering and exiting the Capitol
grounds as it regards Capitol grounds parking and traffic flow. The
parking study was completed for the Senate side of Capitol grounds,
with preliminary results discussed with the Senate Sergeant at Arms,
and the parking study is currently (July 2001) gathering similar
information for the House side. All of these studies are on schedule
with the information being prepared well in advance to allow for
planning alternatives and parking relocation.
Question. How many parking spaces currently devoted to Members of
Congress will be lost both temporarily or permanently during and after
construction of the CVC? What plans are there for parking on the East
Plaza by Members of Congress during peak work hours during construction
of the CVC? Have alternative parking arrangements for Members of
Congress and staff been identified, and if so, what are those
alternatives?
Answer. Parking allocation on Capitol Square is arranged by Senate
and House parking administrators. The AOC does not assign or regulate
parking, thus we do not know who is affected. Based on preliminary
plans, approximately 345 parking spaces will be lost temporarily during
construction of the CVC, of these, 170 spaces will be lost permanently;
however, not all of the spaces are lost at the same time. Plans are
being developed with our CVC Construction Manager to show affected
parking areas and access locations into the Capitol with estimated
dates throughout the construction period. These plans and alternative
parking areas have been discussed with the Senate Sergeant at Arms
office and are currently under development with the House.
Question. Has the AOC and their contractors considered the impact
of tour bus drop off locations and routing on both vehicular (including
Metro buses) and pedestrian traffic patterns on streets surrounding the
Capitol Campus?
Answer. It is anticipated that upon completion of the CVC most
pedestrian traffic will approach the CVC from the east in a similar
fashion to what happens now with the queues of visitors forming along
the East Capitol Extension. To help alleviate some of the vehicular
congestion along First Street the design of the CVC will incorporate
bus drop off and pick up areas along First Street NE & SE across from
the Supreme Court and Library of Congress. The AOC Project Team has
also been meeting with representatives of the Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation, the Downtown Business Improvement District
(DBID), the National Park Service, the Washington Metropolitan Transit
Authority (WMATA), and the District Government in an effort to
coordinate with on-going, city-wide efforts to address tour bus
management and to start a downtown circulator bus service for the Mall,
the downtown business district, and Capitol Hill.
Question. Has the AOC and their contractors reached any preliminary
conclusions on how excavated dirt and other construction debris will be
transported away from Capitol Square? If so, what impacts are there
expected to be on local traffic, especially during rush hours resulting
from dirt and debris-hauling trucks? What steps does the AOC plan to
take to mitigate these potential impacts? For example, will the Capitol
Police be responsible for directing both construction and non-
construction traffic in and around Capitol Square?
Answer. As part of the Design Development Phase of the project, the
Design Team performed a preliminary analysis of how construction
traffic should be routed. It was determined that most construction
traffic should enter and exit the site along First Street NE/SE,
although a limited amount related to the construction of the service
tunnel will also need to access the site on Constitution Avenue, west
of the North Entry Drive. Preliminary studies show that there is enough
street capacity to handle construction traffic on First Street NE/SE,
Constitution Avenue, and Independence Avenue heading west. Routes to
the Southwest Freeway and to New York Avenue to the Beltway have been
identified. Routes to the East were also considered but were dismissed
because of the anticipated impact on the residential neighborhood of
Capitol Hill. The Construction Manager is currently in the process of
refining construction traffic management plans as they continue to work
out the logistics of the project as a whole. Further study, in
cooperation with the District Government, will be done to identify any
changes such as re-signaling, creating turn lanes, etc. that should be
completed to facilitate construction traffic.
Question. Please explain the nature of the coordination that is
occurring between the pedestrian traffic studies and those studies for
visitor circulation in the Capitol, West Front exiting, perimeter
security, and design of a temporary screening facility. What is the
status of these related studies, when did they begin, and are they on
schedule for completion? Have there been any delays in starting or
completing any of these related studies that have adversely impacted on
the pedestrian studies, and if so, what effect have these delays
caused?
Answer. The sub-consultants performing pedestrian and vehicular
traffic studies for the CVC project have participated in Design Team
coordination meetings as appropriate and preliminary findings have been
incorporated into the planning of the CVC. An analysis of the
pedestrian flow within the CVC is will be wrapping up this month. Its
findings have shown that the Final Design as approved by the CPC in
October, 2000 has greatly improved circulation in the facility from the
design that had been proposed at the end of the 1999 Revalidation
Study. The Construction Manager has been working with the Perimeter
Security project team to coordinate logistical plans for the
construction of the CVC as well as with the Capitol Police and Capitol
Guide Service in developing plans for the temporary screening facility.
The Capitol Square Traffic (once the CVC is completed) and West Exiting
studies are also currently underway. All of these studies will be
complete by the fall.
MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Question. The AOC's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes
millions of dollars for capital projects, the largest of which is $42.5
million for repairs to the Capitol Dome.
Which of the AOC's major projects are being designed and/or built
by in-house AOC staff and which are being designed and/or build by
contractors? Does the AOC need to hire additional staff in fiscal year
2002 to specifically perform any design work required for these
projects or to administer contracts for new work?
Answer. None of the AOC's major projects are being designed or
constructed by in-house staff. Currently, the only project being
constructed by in-house staff is the Dirksen Renovation Project (Phase
II). The AOC's current direction and preferred practice is to outsource
design on all major projects and to award construction to private
sector general contractors. The AOC will need to bring on additional
new hires in fiscal year 2002 to help administer consultants and
contractors for our overall workload, not specifically for major
projects.
There is much maintenance, restoration and repair work to be done
to properly fulfill our stewardship responsibilities for our aging
buildings and infrastructure. It is important, of course, to prioritize
this work to first address the issues that impact safety, security and
the fundamental day-to-day needs of Congress and those who work on or
visit Capitol Hill. Given the imperative of operational needs, and
availability of both financial and human resources, it is necessary to
constantly reevaluate those priorities.
With this perspective I initiated a study, which was completed in
March of this year, on the implications of postponing the second phase
of the Capitol Dome restoration project. The first phase investigations
had concluded that the cast iron support structure was well designed
and in good condition. The main issues needing to be addressed related
to the need for repair and maintenance of the cast iron ``skin'' or
shell of the Dome and its related railings etc. The study concluded
that approximately $1.6 million should be invested in the Dome to
permit us, with proper inspections each year, to postpone the Capitol
Dome Phase II project for a number of years, if this were deemed
necessary. If funded, this work could be expedited and completed by the
summer of 2002.
Based upon this study and the need to maintain all functions in the
Capitol with a minimum of disruption during the construction of the
Capitol Visitor Center and other safety related projects, I have
determined that it would be prudent to postpone the full Dome
restoration project until a later time.
It is therefore requested that $1.6 million for interim Dome work
be considered in place of the full restoration request of $42.5
million. It should of course be noted that the full restoration cost
will escalate over the time period of the delay.
The scope of work recommended for this interim period is listed
below. This scope represents the work that can be done now without
proceeding with a scope of work that approaches the full level of the
complete project (The full report is available for review as needed).
--Paint the exterior of the Dome over the present lead-based alkyd
system to rejuvenate its appearance, and cover butt joints and
corroded areas. It has been 13 years since the most recent
painting of the Dome when the proper cycle should be 4-6 years.
--Paint the interior of the Skirt cast iron members to cover base
iron and protect it from further corrosion. The paint on the
iron surfaces at the Skirt is severely deteriorated and needs
to be re-coated to protect the iron.
--Reseal the joints, cracks and defect areas to prevent moisture
infiltration and corrosion at exposed edges. Many of these
defect areas have been sealed over with temporary repairs.
(Inspect this work semi-annually and correct deficiencies found
until the implementation of Phase II.) Finish paint all
surfaces in the Interstitial Space that was primed and
intermediate coated in Phase I. This includes cast iron,
wrought iron hangers, steel, sheet metal walls at Second
Visitors Gallery, the tin canopy, Lantern Level transite walls,
wood railings, wood window sash, and stairs. Bare iron at
defect locations will require extra surface preparation to
remove rust, a full 3 coats of paint, and re-labeling of
defects. The finish coat must be added to prevent UV
degradation of the epoxy intermediate coat.
--Seal ledges and joints in the Interstitial Space and Skirt. Delay
of the installation of a mechanical ventilation system in the
Interstitial Space means continued condensation, which attacks
these ledges and joints. The sealant will prevent moisture
collection in these areas.
--Remove any loose chipped paint along the tour route, including
chipped plaster in the Bulfinch Stair and paint chips and dust
from the following surfaces: the Rotunda stone wall from the
Bulfinch stair to the Grand Stair and from the Grand Stair to
Roof A, cast iron along the Grand Stair and in the First
Visitors Gallery to the Interstitial Space. This is needed to
reduce the health risk to those frequenting the space.
--Repair all defects in secondary members, including: Two locations
at ``Y'' bracket broken tab, One broken tab connector at a
secondary rib, One cracked tab at the base of the Cupola. These
are all location where tension forces acting on the cast iron
have caused cracks. The load mechanics that caused the failure
are still present and although they are not of immediate
concern it is not recommended that they remain for five years
un-repaired. For example the tab at the base of the Cupola is
cracked three quarters of its length and is still in tension
from exterior plate dead load and wind forces.
--Seal all open joints below the Boiler Plate Level and initiate a
semi-annual inspection of all plate joints and gutter patches
to ensure the watertight integrity of the exterior shell for
the duration of the postponement.
--Replace temporary wood walkway at Tholos balcony. This wood
structure like any home deck is subject to deterioration due to
moisture and UV exposure. For safety precautions it should be
replaced.
Question. Please explain the process by which the AOC manages and
monitors projects of various sizes to ensure adherence to the projects'
budget, schedule, and quality measures and to identify variances as
early as possible. Are there currently any staffing shortages in any
AOC or jurisdiction that could create bottlenecks and lead to schedule
delays and/or cost overruns on major ongoing projects or newly funded
projects? What type of workflow analysis has the AOC performed to
identify possible bottlenecks and what steps has or will the mitigate
the risk of these bottlenecks having an adverse effect on projects of
all sizes?
Answer. In response to concerns about project delivery the AOC
conducted a year long effort in a ``Best Practices'' program to
analyze, refine current approaches, and develop new methods for
producing a seamless effort to our clients. From that effort, the AOC
now assigns a Project Manager who is responsible and accountable for
all aspects of each project from its inception to its completion.
The Project Manager is assisted in this effort by a Construction
Manager from the Construction Management Division and various task
leaders in various disciplines. All information is tracked in the
Project Information Center (PIC) and is monitored by the Program
Managers who are responsible for similar projects covering a larger
spectrum of related scopes. In addition, the AOC has recently created
the position of Special Assistant for Project and Program Management.
This individual is tasked with monitoring and reviewing current
projects in either design or construction and keeping the teams focused
on any schedule, budget, design or construction issue that could hamper
its successful completion.
New hires are currently being recruited to assist in workload
distribution in several disciplines and several more are needed in
fiscal year 2002, and the out years. Specific projects such as the CVC
and the Supreme Court Renovation have been developed project specific.
That is a team that is created out of project funds for the duration of
the project and that team is solely responsible for that project.
Attrition and workload are constantly addressed during the year and
staff resource loading is assessed accordingly. A Facilities Planning
and Programming Department is being instituted to bring professional
long range project development into the project planning process. This
group will focus on out year projects and develop the programs, scopes
issues, budgets, and staff resource loading needed to address future
projects.
Question. Does the AOC have a preferred ratio of project management
to construction staff for projects of various sizes? If so, what are
those relationships? How many major projects can a single project
manager be in charge of before the quality of the management and
monitoring or the actual construction work begins to suffer?
Answer. There is no preferred ratio on Project Manager to
construction staff for projects of various sizes. The workload of a
Project Manager is assessed on an individual basis considering many
factors related to that individual's skills and abilities. Some
projects classified as major may not have the same degree of complexity
as others and some PM's can handle more of those.
Supervisors constantly review their staff's workload and discuss
project concerns. Any signs of problems with the quality of the
projects whether related to any issue such as stress or workload are
addressed at the earliest possible moment.
Question. Please describe the process by which the AOC will keep
this committee informed of progress of all major projects, including
possible schedule delays and cost overruns.
Answer. The AOC will keep the committee informed of the progress on
all major projects by issuing periodic progress reports.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. I understand that the contract you have with the Employee
Advocate for six months and is part-time--20 hours a week. The fiscal
year 2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill directed you to fill
this position for one year.
What measures will you take to ensure this position is filled for
twelve continuous months?
What measures will you take to ensure that, if necessary, the
resources are made available to have a full-time, or close to full-
time, position available?
Answer. The contact is renewable for another six months upon
agreement by both parties. The resources to increase the time devoted
to this position will be increased as necessary depending on the
availability of the Employee Advocate.
Question. I have heard that an employee was recently terminated.
While a formal hearing was scheduled, the employee advised the AOC that
the employee would be unable to attend, yet the hearing was held
anyway. The result was that the employee was terminated, without having
a formal hearing. What measures are you taking to ensure flexibility so
that all employees will have a formal hearing before their employment
is terminated?
Answer. The employee was afforded the opportunity for a formal
hearing more than once but chose not to avail himself of the
opportunity.
Question. As you may know, I strongly supported the creation of the
Employee Advocate position because it was clear that employees needed
an independent resource to provide education about AOC employment
policies, and to help them navigate the system should they have any
complaints or concerns.
What level of oversight are you maintaining over the Employee
Advocate?
What criteria led you to determine this level of oversight?
How do you think this level of oversight will affect the Advocate's
ability to complete the mission of her position?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the Advocate can act
independently and in the best interest of your employees?
Answer. The Employee Advocate was recommended competitively by an
experienced consultant. The Employee Advocate is not supervised by the
Architect of the Capitol, but will provide monthly reports to the
Architect outlining activities and services provided to AOC employees.
The level of oversight is intended to assure only that the Employee
Advocate conducts educational activities within the scope of the
contract and operative portions of the Senate and Conference reports.
This level of oversight will not impede her ability to independently
carry out the activities authorized by these reports and her contract.
The expectations for the position are generally as follows: The
Employee Advocate will:
--serve as an educational resource for non-union employees;
--provide assistance to non-union employees regarding issues arising
in the workplace so long as the issues do not concern
disciplinary matters in the post hearing stage in which the
Architect's final determination is being awaited;
--provide informal mediation, facilitation and conciliatory
assistance when non-union employees waive the right to
confidentiality;
--provide coaching assistance to non-union employees to empower them
to appropriately manage conflict;
--provide mechanisms to ensure confidentiality, unless otherwise
waived; and advise management of employee concerns.
It is clear that the role of the Employee Advocate will continue to
evolve. This is not unusual. Typically, someone in such a role will
conduct something akin to a needs assessment prior to establishing an
office. That assessment then defines the role. The assessment is
occurring simultaneously with efforts to provide the service.
Thereafter, the role generally takes a natural course of development
within the parameters established.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Durbin. The subcommittee stands in recess. Thank
you for your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Tuesday, June 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearings
[Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold a
hearing regarding the Secretary of the Senate and the
subcommittee has received a statement from the Financial Clerk
which will be placed in the record at this point.]
Prepared Statement of Timothy S. Wineman, Financial Clerk of the
Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 budget estimates for the Senate
have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
Fiscal Year 2002. This Budget has been developed in accordance with
requests and proposals submitted by the various offices and functions
of the Senate. The total budget estimates for the Senate are
$680,587,249 which reflect an increase of $101,656,249 or 17.56 percent
over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 and does not reflect
any adjustments to these estimates which may be presented to your
Committee during these hearings. The total appropriations for the
Senate for fiscal year 2001 are $578,931,000. An individual analysis of
the budget estimates for all functions and offices has been included in
the Senate Budget Book, previously provided to your Committee.
The budget estimates for fiscal year 2002 are divided into three
major categories as follows:
Senate Items............................................ $109,558,149
Senate Contingent Expense Items......................... 508,117,100
Senate Joint Items...................................... 62,912,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 680,587,249
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 2002 over
the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $27,086,471
increase in administrative expenses and capital assets, primarily
attributable to the request of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
the Senate; (2) $23,711,000 increase in the budget estimate for
Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account to fully fund
the allowances which are under-funded as a result of the consolidation
of population categories, increases in the populations of various
states, and the increase in the Legislative Assistance Allowance
authorized in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, and the
$50,000 per Member per year increase in the Administrative and Clerical
Assistance Allowance authorized by the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Acts, 1999 and 2000; (3) $14,387,872 for the anticipated
4.8 percent cost-of-living increase for fiscal year 2002, and the
annualization costs of the fiscal year 2001 cost-of-living adjustment;
(4) $13,239,149 increase in agency contributions applicable to the
cost-of-living adjustments and other personnel increase requests; (5)
$23,231,757 for personnel adjustments other than the cost-of-living,
attributable primarily to the budget request of the Capitol Police, the
budget request for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, and the
increase in committee funding, authorized pursuant to S. Res. 54.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2002.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Library Association, letter from........................ 86
Anderson, Barry, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office.... 113
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Opening statements.......................................1, 69, 125
Questions submitted by.....................................123, 165
Statement of................................................. 180
Billington, Dr. James H., The Librarian of Congress, Library of
Congress....................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Boertlein, Jack, Deputy Budget Director, Architect of the Capitol 179
Brown, Richard L., Controller, General Accounting Office......... 89
Buckley, Francis J., Jr., Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office................................................ 69
Cook, Charles C., Superintendent, Congressional Printing
Management Division, Government Printing Office................ 69
Crippen, Dan, Director, Congressional Budget Office.............. 113
Prepared statement........................................... 115
DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office.. 69
Opening remarks of........................................... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Dodaro, Gene L., Chief Operating Officer, General Accounting
Office......................................................... 89
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois:
Opening statement............................................ 179
Prepared statement........................................... 1
Questions submitted by......................................65, 236
Edwards, Rick, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................ 125
Green, Gary, General Counsel, Office of Compliance............... 171
Guy, William M., Budget Officer, Government Printing Office...... 69
Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol:
Architect of the Capitol..................................... 179
Prepared statement....................................... 182
U.S. Capitol Police Board.................................... 153
Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Mission Support and Chief Financial
Officer, General Accounting Office............................. 89
Howe, Robert, Assistant Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police,
U.S. Capitol Police Board...................................... 153
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, question
submitted by................................................... 66
Livingood, Bill, Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives, U.S.
Capitol Police Board........................................... 153
Mansker, Robert T., Deputy Public Printer, Government Printing
Office......................................................... 69
McAlhany, Liz, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................... 125
Statement of................................................. 142
McWilliam, John, Chief Administrative Office, U.S. Capitol
Police, U.S. Capitol Police Board.............................. 153
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland, questions
submitted by................................................... 250
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Paull, Lindy L., Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation..... 37
Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office,
Library of Congress, prepared statement........................ 21
Poole, Amita, Administrative Assistant, Architect of the Capitol. 179
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, prepared
statement...................................................... 3
Robfogel, Susan S., Chairperson, Board of Directors, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 171
Saxton, Hon. Jim, U.S. Representative from New York, Chairman,
Joint Economic Committee....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
Congress....................................................... 5
Sherman, Andrew M., Director, Congressional and Public Affairs,
Government Printing Office..................................... 69
Stephens, James, Deputy Executive Director for the House of
Representatives, Office of Compliance.......................... 171
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, statement of........ 180
Stoffel, Larry, Superintendent of the Senate, Architect of the
Capitol........................................................ 179
Talkin, Pamela, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Office
of Compliance.................................................. 171
Thomas, Hon. William M., U.S. Representative from California,
Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation.......................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Thompson, Bill, Executive Director, Office of Compliance......... 171
Prepared statement........................................... 172
Turnbull, Michael, Assistant Architect, Architect of the Capitol. 179
Varey, James J., Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police, U.S.
Capitol Police Board........................................... 153
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Statement of................................................. 158
Walker, David M., Comptroller General, General Accounting Office. 89
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Webster, John D., Director, Financial Services, Library of
Congress....................................................... 5
Wineman, Timothy S., Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate, prepared statement....... 253
Ziglar, Hon. James W.:
Chairman, U.S. Capitol Police Board.......................... 153
Prepared statement....................................... 154
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office of the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate........................... 125
Prepared statement....................................... 127
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 236
Budget proposal.................................................. 179
Capital:
Budget....................................................... 223
Projects..................................................... 183
Management of............................................ 248
Requests for fiscal year 2002, major......................... 185
Capitol dome project............................................. 221
Capitol Power Plant.............................................. 232
Capitol Visitor Center...............................181, 219, 234, 238
Progress toward construction of.............................. 246
Temporary visitor facility................................... 245
Confined spaces--one of 41 mandated life safety programs......... 184
Congressional Accountability Act................................. 226
Day to day operations............................................ 184
Financial management............................................. 243
Fire safety supplemental......................................... 245
Five-year capital budget......................................... 242
Full time equivalents............................................ 227
Management challenges............................................ 236
Parking.......................................................... 219
Garage square 724............................................ 220
Pay levels....................................................... 226
Personnel needs, workload, and life safety issues................ 183
Positions, increase in........................................... 225
Project time frames.............................................. 220
Recycling........................................................ 229
Responsibilities................................................. 181
Senate restaurant................................................ 234
Staffing.......................................................222, 240
Requests..................................................... 185
Summary of fiscal year 2002 request.............................. 182
Summary statement................................................ 180
Traffic and parking studies...................................... 247
U.S. Botanic Garden............................................181, 240
U.S. Senate Office Recycling Program............................. 230
West refrigeration plant......................................... 181
Worker safety.............................................225, 228, 237
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Accomplishments in fiscal year 2000.............................. 116
Additional committee question.................................... 122
Congressional Budget Office educational fund..................... 123
Cost savings..................................................... 115
Cyber security................................................... 114
Educational gift fund............................................ 121
Internal management strategy, progress, and priorities for 2001
and 2002....................................................... 117
Mainframe support................................................ 114
Sensitive data, safeguarding..................................... 114
Work priorities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002................... 117
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
A review of GAO's fiscal year 2000 accomplishments............... 92
Budget request critical to sustaining existing level of service
to the Con-
gress.......................................................... 100
Capitol Police................................................... 108
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 110
Critical infrastructures......................................... 110
Employment subsidies............................................. 106
Fiscal year 2001 plans and future challenges..................... 99
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.................................. 99
Hiring rates..................................................... 105
Leading by example............................................... 91
Mandatory changes................................................ 90
Performance budgeting............................................ 91
Police forces, merging of........................................ 109
Staffing levels.................................................. 104
Truth in Regulating Act.......................................... 108
Winter Olympics preparations..................................... 107
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Additional issues................................................ 78
Congressional printing and binding............................... 79
Appropriation................................................ 73
GPO's fiscal year 2002 appropriations request.................... 73
Network security................................................. 86
Results of 2000.................................................. 71
Revenue transactions............................................. 83
Revolving fund................................................... 77
Salaries and expenses appropriation.............................. 75
Staffing request................................................. 85
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Anticipated workload of the Joint Committee on Taxation for
calendar year 2001............................................. 41
Appropriation request:
Details of fiscal year 2002.................................. 38
Summary of fiscal year 2002.................................. 38
Forecasts........................................................ 51
President's tax plan, revenue estimates for...................... 53
Review of Joint Committee on Taxation operations during calendar
year 2000...................................................... 39
Summary.......................................................... 48
Tax simplification............................................... 52
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Joint Economic Committee research................................ 2
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Additional committee questions................................... 65
American Folklife Center......................................... 32
Authorizing legislation.......................................... 16
Budget request................................................... 20
Major elements of Library's.................................. 5
Capitol Police merger............................................ 35
Center for Russian Leadership.................................... 31
Development.................................................. 17
Collections access, preservation, and security................... 12
Computer security................................................29, 30
Cook class action discrimination case............................ 17
Copyright Office................................................. 14
Budget adjustment............................................ 5
CRS:
Changes made by to adjust.................................... 19
Changing nature of the work of............................... 57
Computer security incidents.................................. 59
On-demand support for the Congress........................... 62
Web site, availability of and access to the by congressional
State and district offices................................. 58
Workload..................................................... 61
Digital:
Futures:
Initiatives.............................................. 11
Request and base funding................................. 28
Materials, acquisition and preservation of................... 6
Equipping the CRS research environment to align with how the
Congress works................................................. 20
Expert staff..................................................... 20
Federal student loan repayment program........................... 33
Information requests............................................. 56
Law Library...................................................... 14
Library buildings and grounds.................................... 15
National Digital Program, special appropriation for the.......... 27
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped 15
Observations..................................................... 18
Productivity..................................................... 56
Quality of life, staff issues.................................... 34
Recruitment, incentives for...................................... 64
Security issues.................................................. 58
The Library of Congress today.................................... 10
Tuition assistance............................................... 64
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Backlog.......................................................... 175
Case load and budget request..................................... 173
Cases, new group of.............................................. 177
Deputy Directors, selection of new............................... 176
Introductory comments............................................ 172
Office of Compliance............................................. 172
Office's fiscal year 2002 budget estimate........................ 173
Our budget history............................................... 172
Safety and health complaints, responses to....................... 175
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Accomplishments.................................................. 159
Additional committee questions................................... 164
Capitol complex, threats within the.............................. 159
Cheltenham facility.............................................. 157
CPR training..................................................... 163
Demographics..................................................... 164
Management:
Improvements................................................. 155
Strengthening................................................ 158
Officers, new.................................................... 164
Pay, comparability............................................... 163
Planning, strategic.............................................. 156
Staffing......................................................... 157
Strategic plan................................................... 162
Training:
Facility..................................................... 162
Initiative................................................... 156
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
E-mail system, new............................................... 148
Employees, additional............................................ 147
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.................................. 131
By department................................................ 132
House, interfacing with.......................................... 150
Out-year budgets................................................. 146
Systems managers................................................. 151
Technology:
Investment in................................................ 149
Issues....................................................... 149