U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

54–224 cc WASHINGTON : 1999

S. HRG. 106–33

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

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

Nondepartmental witnesses

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

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0–16–058458–2
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

JON KYL, Arizona

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

(ex officio)

Professional Staff

CHRISTINE CICCONE

JAMES H. ENGLISH (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999

Page

U.S. Capitol Police Board ........................................................................................ 1

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 21

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999

Joint Committee on Taxation ................................................................................. 87

Joint Economic Committee ..................................................................................... 103

Office of Compliance ................................................................................................ 105

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1999

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 117

General Accounting Office ...................................................................................... 165

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 189

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 209

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999

U.S. Senate:

Office of the Secretary of the Senate .............................................................. 217

Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper ............................................ 271

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 293
(1)

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–116, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBER, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER,

CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. The subcommittee will come to order.

We want to welcome our new ranking member, Senator Feinstein

from California. She has come back onto the Appropriations Committee and we are delighted to have her assigned to this subcommittee and have her serving as the ranking member.

We also have another new member of the subcommittee, Senator

Durbin, and look forward to working with him as well.

One of the nice things about Senator Feinstein, along with all

the other nice things she automatically brings to any assignment,

is the fact that she is a member of the Rules Committee. There is

an overlap in the Rules Committee area of jurisdiction and our

area of responsibility. So we will have a coordination here between

the Rules Committee function and this subcommittee’s function

that will be very welcome and I think very useful.

Now, I cannot let the opening opportunity pass without talking

about my current obsession, which is Y2K. As we noticed, yesterday was Y2K Day in the Senate and we passed two pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate with respect to Y2K. I think we

are making fairly good progress in a variety of areas.

I will not revisit all of that, except to share with you the comment of my chief of staff for the Y2K committee. When we first got
2

into this issue in the Banking Committee, he was my Banking

Committee staffer and he quoted his grandmother, who said: ‘‘Always sweep in front of your own stoop first.’’ We are out sweeping

in front of everybody else’s stoop and we have to ask the question,

is the legislative branch of government going to be Y2K-compliant?

Now, those of you who testified before this subcommittee before

know that I always raise it. I am putting you on notice that I will

raise it again this morning and that the subcommittee is prepared

to have another hearing on this issue later this year if in fact the

Y2K preparedness warrants it. I can think of nothing more personally embarrassing to me than to have other parts of the economy

all work and the legislative branch fail to work and have people

say, well, he was out sweeping in front of everybody else’s stoop,

but he did not bother to look at the dust and debris that had accumulated in front of his own.

So I am putting you on notice. I know that comes as no surprise

because that is an issue that I have been so outspoken on for the

last 3 years, but I wanted to make that clear.

It is worth noting that OMB has set the 31st of March as the

deadline for every executive agency to have things done so that the

testing can start. We already know that there are executive agencies that will not meet that deadline. We think that is a decent

deadline. It gives you 9 months for testing, which in some instances will be plenty. In others, like the Defense Department, it

will probably not be, because the testing is in many ways the most

time-consuming part of the Y2K challenge.

If the agencies we hear from this morning are not ready by the

31st of March, then we plan to have some kind of additional hearing in April to have you outline when you plan to be ready and exactly where you are with respect to remediation.

Now, Senator Feinstein, we appreciate again your being here,

your joining us, and happy to have whatever opening statement

you may care to make.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want

to say that it is a great pleasure for me to work with you. I find

you very open and willing to discuss and share, and I want you to

know that, in the best bipartisan spirit, I really appreciate that

very, very much.

For me, some of the numbers that I see on the Legislative

Branch have been a surprise, and as we begin the process of this

detailed review of the fiscal year 2000 battlefield I note that the

Legislative Branch Subcommittee’s total is $2,621,321,000, which is

an increase of $269,521,000, or an 11.5 percent increase from fiscal

year 1999 enacted levels. For the Senate items only, the amount

requested for fiscal year 2000 totals $517,460,000, which is an increase of over $42 million, or approximately 9 percent over last

year’s enacted level.

Those are for me, who has only done city and county budgets

really, a substantial amount. I expect that, because the budgetary

constraints on the domestic discretionary budget will be tight again

this year, the 302(b) allocation to this particular subcommittee will

also be tight.

I note that members of the Capitol Police Board are scheduled

to testify first. As you know, the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appro-
3

priations Act provided emergency funding of $106,782,000 to the

Capitol Police Board to enhance security for the Capitol complex

and the Library of Congress buildings and grounds. I have been

privileged to hear the Chief’s presentation at the Rules Committee.

This includes additional police staffing of 260 to be brought on over

a 2-year period to assist in implementing these security upgrades,

which incidentally I support.

It is my hope, Chief, that you will take some time during your

opening remarks to outline for this subcommittee the impact these

additional staff will have on an annualized basis to your budget request beginning with fiscal year 2001.

I would like to thank the chairman for scheduling these witnesses to appear before us today, and I thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Our first panel is the U.S. Capitol Police Board, James Ziglar,

and we welcome you, sir. This is your first experience before the

subcommittee. I hope we will not continue to see the musical chairs

phenomenon with respect to the Sergeant at Arms. Since I have

been on this subcommittee, I have heard testimony from Howard

Green, Greg Casey, and now you. We hope you are here for certainly as long as you want to be and for a good long time. We welcome you and welcome your expertise to this assignment.

Along with Mr. Ziglar are some more familiar faces: Mr.

Livingood, Mr. Hantman, and Chief Abrecht.

BUDGET REQUEST

The budget request for the police is $90.2 million, $81.2 million for salaries and $9 million for general expenses. This is an 8.6 percent increase over the fiscal 1999 level. It supports the current FTE

level of 1,251 civilian and uniformed officers.

Before we begin with the testimony, I want to formally and publicly thank the Police Board and the police staff for your openness

and your willingness to share with us the specifics of many of the

challenges you are facing. Too often we have people who when they

have problems try to hide them and hope that in hiding them they

can make them go away.

But you have been very open and candid with this subcommittee

and I appreciate our relationship. I think this relationship makes

it easier for us to help you. We know that sometimes you would

rather not share some of your problems, but your willingness to do

so I think is admirable and much appreciated.

We want to work together with the police to help you get the infrastructure that you need. We recognize that the police provide an

absolutely vital and, as was dramatically demonstrated last summer, life-threatening service for all of us. We sometimes take that

protection for granted. It was a tragic incident that reminded us

just how professional our Capitol Police force really is. I would be

remiss if I did not publicly, through you, Chief Abrecht, thank you

for all of the work that all of the men and women on the police

force do to take care of us.

So we will, I assume, begin with you, Mr. Ziglar as the Chairman

of the Board.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein.
4

With respect to the musical chairs comment you made, I hope

that I do not contribute to that. But in keeping with your comment

about Y2K, the Leader has explained to me that I will contribute

to that if I do not get it fixed right. So if I am not here for next

year’s hearing, it is because we failed on Y2K and the Leader did

not think kindly of it. But hopefully that will not occur.

As you mentioned, this is my first occasion to be here and I am

very pleased to be here. I am also very honored to be Sergeant at

Arms of the Senate and I am looking forward to working with you.

As you know, Senator, I worked here when your dad was a Senator, and so it is like coming home for me 35 years later.

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

I would like to introduce—well, you have already introduced

them, Bill Livingood and Alan Hantman, the other two members

of the Capitol Police Board, and make one comment, and that is

in a very short period of time we have had an extraordinarily good

working relationship. In addition to working together well, we have

actually become friends and are enjoying each other.

In fact, today is the first time that consolidated testimony among

the Architect and the House and the Senate has been presented on

a budget request, and we think that this demonstrates our unity.

I would like to also introduce to you two other folks in the audience here, Doyle Frederick and Ozzie Girard. Doyle is the Chief of

Staff of the Sergeant at Arms and Ozzie Girard is here working on

security and police liaison issues for me. I did a little bit of reorganization in order to focus on those things.

We have prepared a written statement which has been submitted

for the record. In addition, I would like to just make a few comments.

Senator BENNETT. Your statement will appear in the record in

full.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you. I would like to just make a few comments, if I could, summarizing and somewhat expanding on it.

Since I became Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and particularly

since I became Capitol Police Board Chairman, I have developed a

very strong respect for the Capitol Police Department, the Chief

and all of those folks that run it. It is a very professional and very

capable organization. I have to tell you, having arrived right at the

beginning of the impeachment process, which does not happen that

often, with all sorts of incredible security problems and challenges,

the Capitol Police performed superbly.

There were very, very few glitches. It was a seamless performance in terms of security. I want to especially thank the Chief and

officers for their performance in that.

I think we all should be very thankful for and proud of the service that we get from the Capitol Police Department. Now, that is

not to say, however, that over the next few years that we do not

have some challenges that we are going to have to meet in terms

of the security around here.

During the next few years we are going to do a number of things.

As you pointed out, we are going to add roughly 260 new officers
5

to the police force, which is a massive infusion of new personnel,

and that will create some transition challenges.

We are going to upgrade the personal equipment for officers and

we are going to upgrade the training for our officers. We are going

to be implementing the massive physical security upgrades that are

part of the omnibus authorization from last year, and that is Capitol Complex-wide.

We are going to be developing or are developing a master plan

to address some of the deficiencies in the Capitol Police infrastructure. And we are going to implement many of the recommendations

of the recently released Booz-Allen and Hamilton report, having to

do primarily with the administration and strategic planning part

of the Capitol Police.

The Congress has been very supportive of the Capitol Police and

of the security issues around the Capitol. Just in the last few

weeks literally, we have had a number of very important developments that have occurred. In the House, both the Appropriations

and the authorizing committees have now approved the $106 million implementation plan, and we are hoping very soon to get approval on the Senate side so that we can begin to move ahead.

Second, the appropriate House and Senate committees have approved the hiring of our 260 new personnel. With respect to the

House, there are about 15 positions that they want us to provide

additional justification for. We are in the process of recruiting and

also developing a training program.

Obviously, to bring that many personnel on board we are going

to have to double the size of the training program and bring a little

more efficiency into it in order to get them up to the professional

level that we have for the rest of our officers.

Third, the perimeter security program has now been approved by

all parties and the Architect of the Capitol is doing a terrific job

of getting it moving. I suspect Alan will talk more about that, either now or in his testimony later on today.

So these three very critical elements of our security plan are now

in place or just about in place and operating. We are very proud

of the way the police have handled this and how quickly it has

gone, and particularly for the support from the Congress on both

sides.

Another significant recent event was the release of the BoozAllen and Hamilton study on the Police Department which particularly focused on administrative activities. They have recommended

some changes in both the human resources, information technology, and financial management areas. One of the overarching

recommendations was that the Police Department needs to have a

strategic plan in this area. We had—actually, before that recommendation was final started the process of working with the Police Department on creating a strategic plan, and also moving

quickly to take some action on a reorganization that is obvious, I

think, to everyone that we need to do.

In fact, when we leave here today we are going to a 2-day offsite

Board workshop. We are not going to any luxurious place. We are

just going outside the Capitol complex so that our telephones do

not ring all the time. We will look at the Booz-Allen report in depth

and come up with our recommendations; the master planning docu-
6

ment on the facilities side; as well as some other implementation

issues with regard to the omnibus authorization.

Let us talk about Y2K.

Senator BENNETT. OK.

Y2K

Mr. ZIGLAR. I was keeping you in suspense by putting it further

down, not that it is not the number one priority.

In my role as Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, I obviously have

more than just the police part of the Y2K. I have been, particularly

since the impeachment trial was over and I had a little bit more

time, very involved in it. I was very involved in it when I first got

here.

I am feeling very comfortable, Senator, that we are doing the

right things. I have reached beyond just our in-house people to

have some outside folks take a look at it on an informal basis, just

to make sure that there was nothing that seemed to be OK but was

not. I am feeling good that we are—although we may not have all

things done by March 31 we are doing very well, and I suspect that

you and I and Senator Feinstein will be talking about those issues

in another budget hearing on March the 24th.

But with respect to the Police Department, we identified 19 critical missions systems. I have gone through each one of them with

the police. We are now at the implementation stage, beyond validation, on at least ten of them, as I recall. I do not have that right

in front of me. We are at validation on 14 of the 19, and we are

doing quite well on the renovation of the rest of them.

There is only one system that at this point I think we are not

exactly sure what we are going to do with, and that is the Motorola

radio console system. The issue there, quite frankly, having looked

at this thing in some detail, is not so much Y2K compliance, because we can get there. The issue is whether or not we are going

to spend between $600,000 and $900,000 to replace that console

system or we are going to do a patch.

Now, without regard to Y2K the fact is that that system is very

old, it is outdated, it is at the low end of the technological curve,

and, more importantly, it has no redundancy in the system. From

a police security point of view, it is not a very attractive situation.

So to be quite honest with you, we are tending now, as a result of

an additional technical meeting yesterday, toward replacement of

the console system through an RFP process. Because there is a lot

of good technology out there, we are not limited to the original supplier.

PREPARED STATEMENTS

I think that is probably what we will recommend and we are

very close to making that decision. It really has to do with upgrading our technology as much as with Y2K.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you

to present the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the United States Capitol Police.
7

Although I have been a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board for a relatively

short period of time, and Chairman for only two months, I have developed a strong

respect for the capabilities and professionalism of the men and women of the United

States Capitol Police. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to Bill

Livingood and Alan Hantman for their outstanding contributions as members of the

Board and for their wise counsel during this learning period I am traversing. We

have developed an excellent working relationship in a short period of time and this

spirit of cooperation and unity is evident today in our testimony before this Subcommittee. For the first time, the members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board have

submitted a single joint statement regarding the U.S. Capitol Police budget request.

Mr. Chairman, the next few years will be a challenging time for the United States

Capitol Police. The Department plans to add 260 police personnel to its ranks over

a two year period; we will provide officers with upgraded personal equipment and

training; we will make significant changes to the Department’s administrative and

operational capabilities; we will upgrade physical security equipment; and, under

the direction of the Architect, we will make much needed improvements to the physical security barriers which protect the Capitol Complex. The challenge for the members of the Capitol Police Board will be to manage this change and to continue to

meet the unique security needs of Congress during the transition.

In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105–277, the U.S. Capitol Police

Board recently submitted to the authorizing and appropriations committees an integrated implementation plan detailing the needed police equipment upgrades and

outlining the first phase of the security enhancements to the Capitol Complex and

Library of Congress buildings and grounds. The segment of the implementation plan

which addresses the personnel increase has been approved by all committees and

we have initiated an aggressive recruitment agenda to fill the approved positions.

Just last week, the House oversight and appropriation committees approved the remaining parts of the Security Enhancement Implementation Plan. We would very

much appreciate your early consideration and approval of the remaining parts of the

plan which will allow us to move ahead with the upgrade of police equipment and

physical security technology. In an unprecedented fashion, the USCP, Architect of

the Capitol, Library of Congress Police, and even the U.S. Supreme Court Police are

working closely to coordinate the efficient execution of the Plan upon final approval.

With regard to physical security upgrades, we have just received final approval

for the Capitol Square Perimeter Security Plan. As you know, this plan addresses

the need to upgrade the physical barriers that will surround the Capitol Square and

the Senate office buildings. The new barriers will provide a higher level of security

and will also be more aesthetically pleasing than the current structures. These initiatives, implemented under the guidance of the Architect, will provide long-term security for the Capitol Complex and meet current industry standards to protect

against vehicular terrorist attacks. For your information, the security perimeter upgrades along Delaware Avenue and C Street on the Senate side are currently under

design and we will be requesting approval to release funds to proceed with construction shortly.

Last year, the Chairmen of the Legislative Branch appropriations and oversight

committees tasked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to contract and oversee an

evaluation of selected administrative operations of the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP)

to identify opportunities to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. The GAO selected Booz-Allen & Hamilton to perform the evaluation and to conduct a management review of selected USCP administrative operations. Specifically, the review addressed the management of the financial services, human resources, and information technology operations. The members of the Board have been briefed by the staff

of the General Accounting office and last week we were provided with the final report of Booz-Allen & Hamilton. Areas highlighted for emphasis during the briefing

process included the need to establish an administrative structure to support the

core mission; the need to develop a strategic plan; and the need to establish policies

and procedures for all support activities. The Board is in general agreement with

the findings and recommendations of the report.

The Board and the USCP have begun addressing the issues raised in the report.

Actions to be taken include preparing a draft reorganization plan; acquiring the resources for preparing the Department’s strategic plan; and rectifying staffing deficiencies in the areas of financial management, information technology management,

and human resources management. Many of the staffing issues were addressed in

the staffing proposal which has now been approved by this Committee. In addition,

the creation of an improved policy review and personnel evaluation process is under

way.

Once the Board has had the opportunity to fully review and discuss the information contained in the final report, we will make additional decisions on how to insti-
8

tute measures to improve the Department’s administrative infrastructure to reflect

best business practices. As a matter of fact, immediately following this hearing, the

Board has scheduled a two and a half day workshop to discuss USCP activities and

operations, with the Booz-Allen report being one of the agenda items for discussion.

We will keep the Committees advised as we make progress toward implementing

the recommendations contained in the report.

Another important issue is the status of the U.S. Capitol Police Year 2000 computer compliance project. The police have identified nineteen mission critical systems which must become Y2K compliant. Thus far, we have renovated fourteen systems and have validated ten. The validation of two other systems is 98 percent complete. Currently, the U.S. Capitol Police have ten of their nineteen systems Y2K

compliant and in operation. Of the remaining nine systems, two are 98 percent complete and one is 50 percent complete. The remaining six are being renovated in conjunction with the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Metropolitan Police,

or are otherwise the sole responsibility of the USCP. We project that we will have

achieved full Year 2000 computer compliance for all U.S. Capitol Police systems by

September, 1999.

The increase reflected in the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2000 budget request

is primarily a result of funds needed to sustain the revised longevity rates and differentials for Sunday, holiday, and evening shifts that were approved by the authorizing and appropriations committees for fiscal year 1999. It also includes the cost

of the anticipated COLA and comparability pay increases, as well as personnel benefits.

Also, it should be noted that the USCP fiscal year 2000 budget request includes

an increase in funding to cover the Department’s computer and telecommunications

expenses. Additional funds are necessary to cover the needed improvements in the

information technology area based on our own analysis and as recommended in the

Booz-Allen report. We are proposing to include this funding in the USCP budget

rather than continue to use resources from the budget of the Office of the Senate

Sergeant at Arms. The Senate has provided the U.S. Capitol Police with extensive

equipment and technical support over the past several years. The Board feels that

the Chief and the Command staff, under the supervision of the Board, should have

direct control over and accountability for the funds required to purchase and operate

these systems. Therefore, we have proposed that these items be included in the U.S.

Capitol Police Budget.

The Capitol Police Board has approved security related projects that are included

in the Architect of the Capitol’s budget request for fiscal year 2000. These include

such items as: Infrastructure for Security Installations which provides the infrastructure accommodations to support the continued installation by the Capitol Police of door controls, alarms, cameras and other security devices throughout the

Capitol Complex; Security Project Support that will provide the AOC with technical

staffing resources to coordinate, oversee, and implement the design and construction

of capital improvements that were funded in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental and Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277; and, Secure

Attic and Basement Areas for Senate Office Buildings, that will provide for the construction of physical barriers in various storage areas of the Senate. The Board also

concurred with the AOC and LOC Book Conveyor System Security Plan that will

provide for access control to the Library of Congress book conveyor system; and Collections Security that will provide for the continued installation of card readers and

other security sensors and devices to protect the Library’s collections.

The U.S. Capitol Police Board is grateful for your efforts to pass and fund the pay

parity and benefits package for our personnel last year. The greatest asset of any

organization, whether public or private, is its personnel. The U.S. Capitol Police relies on the ability, dedication, and contribution of its personnel at all levels in order

to meet its mission. Thanks to these pay and benefit initiatives, we believe that we

are now in a better position to retain our experienced officers while attracting highly-qualified candidates.

The members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board and I would like to express special

thanks to this Committee for the strong support you provided to the U.S. Capitol

Police in the aftermath of the tragic deaths of Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective

John Gibson. The outpouring of concern and support from members of Congress, the

Congressional community, and the public helped to sustain the families of our fallen

heroes and the men and women who continue to serve. We are pleased to report

that pursuant to Public Law 105–223, the Board has made a substantial distribution from the Capitol Police Memorial Fund. This contribution was equally divided

between the Chestnut and Gibson families.

We look forward to working with the Committee as we strive to meet the challenges and demands of protecting the Capitol Complex and those who work and visit
9

here. A detailed budget has been previously submitted to the Committee. Thank you

for this opportunity to appear before you and we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY L. ABRECHT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you

today to discuss the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the United States Capitol

Police.

As you are aware, 1998 proved to be a difficult and challenging year. On July

24th, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson were killed in the

line of duty inside the United States Capitol. The service and sacrifice of these fine

officers reminds us all of the inherently dangerous and unpredictable nature of our

mission. The ability of Congress to safely and freely perform its legislative function

is inextricably tied to the ability of the U.S. Capitol Police to perform its law enforcement, security, and protective function. The July 24th attack on the Capitol underscored that bond. So did the response from the Congress and the Congressional

community to our loss. It was clear that the deaths of J.J. and John also struck a

chord with the American people and individuals around the world because the Department was overwhelmed with expressions of sympathy and support. The kinds

words of support and the donations of flowers, food, cards and letters helped us

through this trying time. Likewise, people generously contributed to the Memorial

Fund which Congress graciously established to aid the families of our fallen heroes.

On behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police, I would also like to

thank Congress for granting the unprecedented honor of holding a Congressional

Tribute for Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in the Rotunda of the Capitol.

As difficult as it was, the mission of the Department proceeded. Shortly after the

shootings, security was again heightened in the wake of the terrorist attack on the

American embassies in east Africa. The recent military action in Iraq also raised

the specter of terrorism. Through it all, the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police rose to the challenge and performed their duty in a professional and effective

manner. I am proud to be associated with such an outstanding group of individuals.

In the aftermath of the shootings and the other incidents which affected security,

a comprehensive security survey of the Capitol Complex was conducted at the direction of the Capitol Police Board. The security task force, which was comprised of

security experts from federal law enforcement agencies and the private sector, used

the 1995 U.S. Capitol Police/U.S. Secret Service study as a base-line. The preliminary results of the study were transmitted to the committees of jurisdiction for their

consideration and funding was provided for the recommended security upgrades

through Public Law 105–277.

In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105–277, an integrated implementation plan was submitted to the authorizing and appropriations committees detailing the first phase of the security enhancements to the Capitol Complex and the

Library of Congress buildings and grounds. The plan includes adding an additional

260 police personnel to the Department, providing upgraded equipment to our officers, and obtaining state-of-the-art physical security equipment. The segment of the

plan which addresses the personnel increase has been approved by all committees

and we have begun an aggressive recruitment and training agenda to fill these positions and deploy additional officers in the field. Just last week, the House Administration Committee and Appropriation Committee approved the remaining parts of

the Security Enhancement Implementation Plan. Your prompt consideration and approval of the remaining parts of the plan will allow us to move ahead expeditiously

with these very important security issues.

With the addition of 260 police personnel over a two-year period, my concern regarding the inadequacy of several of our facilities to meet the mission of the Department has deepened. Several facilities currently used by the U.S. Capitol Police can

no longer adequately support the mission of the Department. Others are in need of

repair and expansion or relocation to another site. In addition, our training facilities, which consist of three converted offices in the Ford House Office Building, are

woefully inadequate to support our diverse training needs. The Committee has approved funding to the Architect to develop a comprehensive facilities needs assessment and space plan for the Department and other congressional entities. This

study, known as the Capitol Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program, is currently underway. It will examine the long-term facilities requirements of the U.S.

Capitol Police in the areas of training, administrative and security operations, and

personnel support. We look forward to working with the Committee to address this

critical issue once the final report has been submitted. In the short term, the Archi-
10

tect is addressing several issues relating to the condition and functionality of numerous facilities currently used by the police. Your favorable consideration of the

Architect’s repair and improvement requests will ensure that our personnel can be

provided with clean, safe, and functional working environments until such time as

the long-term police facilities issues are resolved.

As you are aware, last year the General Accounting Office (GAO) was tasked with

conducting an evaluation of U.S. Capitol Police administrative operations in the

areas of financial management, human resource management, and information technology management. I have been briefed by the GAO staff and last week was provided with the final report by their consultant, Booz-Allen & Hamilton. At the direction and supervision of the Board, we have begun addressing issues raised in the

report. These actions include preparing a draft reorganization plan; acquiring the

resources for preparing a strategic plan; and rectifying staffing deficiencies in the

areas of financial management, information technology, and human resources management. In addition, the creation of an improved policy review and personnel evaluation process is under way. This report was issued at a propitious time for the U.S.

Capitol Police. Our administrative infrastructure is being strained by the functions

related to the expansion of the Department and associated security projects. This

report will provide us with a blueprint to make needed adjustments to our administrative functions so they can effectively and efficiently support the core mission of

the Department.

Another issue which is critical to the core mission of the Department is the Year

2000 computer conversion. We have identified nineteen mission critical computer

systems which must become Y2K compliant. Currently, we have renovated fourteen

of these systems and validated ten. The validation of two additional systems is 98

percent complete. Currently, we have ten systems Y2K compliant and in operation.

Of the remaining nine systems, two are 98 percent complete and one is 50 percent

complete. The remaining six systems are being renovated in conjunction with the

Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Metropolitan Police, or are otherwise the

sole responsibility of the USCP. We project full Year 2000 computer compliance for

all nineteen U.S. Capitol Police systems by September, 1999. It should be noted

that, as a precaution, we have begun continency planning to ensure that our core

life-safety, security, protective, and law enforcement operations can proceed

unhindered in the event of significant, unanticipated Y2K disruptions affecting our

critical computer functions.

On a related matter, the USCP fiscal year 2000 budget request also includes

funds to cover the Department’s computer and telecommunications expenses. These

funds were previously taken from the budget of the Office of the Senate Sergeant

at Arms. If approved, the Department will 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

2000 budget.

The majority of the increase contained in the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2000

Budget Request is the result of funding needed to sustain the revised longevity

rates and the differentials for Sunday, holiday, and evening shifts that were approved by the authorizing and appropriations committees in fiscal year 1999. In addition, funding is included to cover the anticipated COLA and pay comparability increases and associated personnel benefits.

The final significant increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget is in the category of

life-cycle replacement costs. It is essential to the operation of the Department that

our officers utilize equipment which is up-to-date and able to meet the demands of

police and security work. Therefore, we have requested funding to methodically replace physical security systems, vehicles, and police equipment. The life-cycle replacement of such items will ensure that we have ready access to modern, safe and

fully functional equipment. The Department has been unable to adhere to the lifecycle replacement program, particularly with regard to fleet vehicle replacement,

due to reprogramming and other funding restrictions in previous budget cycles.

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for your efforts to provide our

personnel with salary adjustments during in fiscal year 1999. In doing so, you

helped us achieve pay parity with other similar federal law enforcement agencies.

This action has resulted in improved morale, better retention, and an increase in

the number of qualified applicants.

I am proud of the level and quality of service the men and women of the U.S.

Capitol Police provide on a daily basis. As we saw last year, securing the Capitol

Complex is a daunting and dangerous task. With your continued support and guidance, I am confident that we will be prepared to meet the challenges and demands

of the coming year.

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
11

Senator BENNETT. Do you have the money in your proposed

budget for that replacement or would that be additional funds?

Mr. ZIGLAR. No, sir, we have that money in the budget.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Thank you.

Mr. ZIGLAR. With respect to the budget, you have outlined pretty

much the numbers, the $9,187,000, which is a $7,106,000 increase

over the 1999 budget. I might also add that, Senator Feinstein, I

think you noted that only $9 million of that $90 million is for nonsalary items. So it is quite clear that most of our dollars go to personnel, as it should be. I mean, that is what we are here to do, to

provide that kind of security.

Let me tell you a little bit about the breakdown of the two significant pieces of the $7 million above last year; $4,353,000 of that

is salary-related or personnel cost-related, the COLA and some

merit increases and things like that. So the biggest part of that $7

million is actually related to the salary item.

The other large part is $1,761,000 for computer and telecom.

There is a little history here I would like to tell you about, which

I am sure you know. In the past the Sergeant at Arms budget has

provided a large chunk of the money for computer and telecom support, that was not in the Capitol Police budget. We have on average

over the last few years spent between $500,000 and $600,000 for

computer-telecom, which has been unfortunately only at a bare

maintenance level. It has not provided for any upgrade in the technology. So we have really fallen behind technologically in the Police

Department.

We are proposing, as the Appropriations Committee suggested

that those telecom-computer items go into the Capitol Police budget

and we not have them in the Sergeant at Arms budget. I think the

House is inclined to go along with that now. At least I got that feeling from our discussions with them. And our $1,761,000, which of

course is higher than the $500,000 or $600,000 that we have had

in the past, represents technology upgrades, not just the maintenance level that we had been supplying.

The other thing that I think is important is that in doing this

in the Capitol Police budget, they will have the responsibility and

flexibilities to manage their IT programs. Quite frankly they have

in the past been forced to accept what the Sergeant at Arms technical people have said they are going to buy or they are going to

use, as opposed to being able to independently evaluate what would

be best in terms of technology for the police. So I think having it

in the police budget, subject to oversight of this committee and obviously the House committee and the Capitol Police Board, is a

good idea for making sure that we are at the cutting edge of technology.

COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER POLICE FORCES

Senator BENNETT. Let me interrupt you with a question. It may

be more appropriate later on, but while I am thinking about it let

me just ask you now. As you move to replace some of this technology and communications equipment, what about making it compatible with other police forces on the Hill?

You have the Library of Congress police force.
12

Mr. ABRECHT. I raised that issue yesterday actually at the meeting that we were discussing earlier, that we did want to achieve

interoperability with the Library and the Supreme Court as a result of this.

Senator BENNETT. Right.

Mr. ABRECHT. And to the extent feasible with the Metropolitan

Police Force as well, who surround us on every side.

Senator BENNETT. It has been my experience that every police

department loves its own toys and they want to have their version.

I do not mean to refer to these things as ‘‘toys’’ because they are

clearly not. But that kind of mentality does sometimes get in the

way, and somebody who is going to disturb activities on Capitol

Hill is not going to observe the niceties of, gee, I am now in the

Supreme Court precinct, and now I am crossing over to the Library

of Congress, and the Capitol Police and, as you say, Chief Abrecht,

the Metropolitan Police as well.

So I am willing to support the funding for the increase in the

technology and an increased level, but I wanted to put that caveat

in your conversation.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Senator, if you will indulge me in a little anecdote

from the impeachment trial. I had the good fortune to have known

the Chief Justice for some 30 years, having clerked up at the Court

when he was there and also worked with him at the Justice Department before then. During the course of the impeachment trial

there were some pauses where he was sitting around and I was

talking to him, and I raised this issue with him about compatibility

of the technology between our police forces, and we chatted about

it.

He is very much supportive of it, in fact to the point that he had

his communications chief over there give me a call. So we are very

much committed to the idea that we ought to be able to talk to

each other through all this technology.

Well, let me close by thanking the committee and the entire Congress for the support that you have given the police, particularly

during the last year when we suffered the tragic loss of Officers

Chestnut and Gibson. The concern that was expressed by everyone

I think gave great strength to those families, as well as to the entire Police Department.

On a happier note, I am also pleased to report that just within

the last couple of weeks we have made a sizable distribution to

those families from the Police Memorial Fund, which was made

possible by the generous contributions from lots of people both up

here and around the country.

So we thank you very much. We thank you for this opportunity,

and my colleagues and I would be very happy to answer any questions you have.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Y2K PROGRAM

I appreciate your comments about Y2K. It is my understanding

that you still do not have your Y2K plan on paper, have not committed it to a formal document. Is that true?

Mr. ABRECHT. I do not think that is totally fair. I think we have

done a tremendous amount of work with the GAO and we have
13

submitted draft plans to them, and by the end of this month we

will have a formal plan that they have agreed to.

Senator BENNETT. OK.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Senator, if I could comment on that.

Senator BENNETT. Sure.

Mr. ZIGLAR. I had a meeting separate from the Police Department with GAO to review the Police Department Y2K program.

And while it is not on paper in the formal sense, GAO was quite

comfortable with the progress that has been made there and the

approach that has been taken, and brought a number of pieces of

paper for me to review on that.

Senator BENNETT. Fine.

MANAGEMENT REVIEW

Now let us go to the management review and recommendations.

You are having a retreat this week to talk about that. Who is responsible for implementing the recommendations? Will that be

hammered out in the retreat, the specific names?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Yes, sir. In fact, Booz-Allen folks are coming. The

people who actually worked on it are going to be spending Friday,

I believe it is Friday morning with us. We will then iron out how

exactly how we are going to approach it.

The House has asked for us to give some feedback on the report,

our reaction to it, by March 31 and a final plan on the implementation strategy by April 30. So we are on a time line from the House

side and, frankly, I am hoping that we will be ahead of that time

line and in process before those deadlines.

Senator BENNETT. Tell us about your efforts to cross-service your

accounting functions?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Do you want to?

Mr. ABRECHT. I will be glad to.

This is one of the three areas that we had asked for this evaluation to consider, because it is one of the areas where we knew we

had difficulties. Our financial management system is very, very

old. It runs on the Senate mainframe. It has serious problems. We

have been looking for a solution to that problem.

One of the things that Booz-Allen recommended is that we ought

to get some other agency to cross-service that function. So I had my

director of financial management, through the Legislative Branch

Financial Managers Council look for a cross-servicing option. The

option that seems to be best suited to us is the General Accounting

Office. They have offered to cross-service that function for us. They

have done some testing. It shows that it can be accomplished. We

are very excited that that is probably the very best solution for us.

They are planning to charge a very modest fee for this and it seems

like the ideal solution for us. We are very excited and hopeful that

the budget that you are considering today will be administered

through their accounting system.

Senator BENNETT. You say they will charge you a modest fee. Do

you experience concomitant savings by virtue of having that now

done out, where the net cost stays the same? Or are we looking at

increased costs?

Mr. ABRECHT. It is hard to tell, because the system that we are

currently running on is essentially the Sergeant at Arms main-
14

frame. So if there is any savings, it would be in the operating costs

of the Sergeant at Arms mainframe. I expect that would be the

only savings that would be involved. There may even be some additional staffing involved.

It is a much better system. It requires, unfortunately, that we

keep much better records than we currently do, so there are some

additional personnel that will probably be required to make this

work. They are provided for in the security enhancement plan.

Senator BENNETT. Are they provided for in this budget?

Mr. ABRECHT. No, they are provided for in the security enhancement plan. We anticipated that bringing on the additional officers

and increasing the complexity of our physical security would ultimately have an additional impact on our infrastructure. So as part

of the 260 additional personnel, we have a small number in there

for administrative support. There are five for the Office of Financial Management to bring that operation up to snuff.

PAYROLL INCREASES

Senator BENNETT. Do I understand correctly that, back to your

point, Mr. Ziglar, about the payroll portion of the increase, that

there are no increases in FTE’s, that this is entirely COLA’s and

merit pay for your existing FTE’s?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Correct. The new FTE’s that will come on through

the enhancement plan are being funded through that enhancement

plan through fiscal year 2000. In 2001 our budget, the Capitol Police budget, will reflect those additional hires. We estimate that

cost to be about $12 million.

Senator BENNETT. How big a number do you use in the COLA,

what percentage?

Mr. ABRECHT. We asked the Congressional Budget Office to provide us what they expect the COLA to be.

Senator BENNETT. I do not think it is going to be as high. Instinctively, I am saying that is an awful lot of merit increases to

get the total.

Mr. ABRECHT. There are no merit increases actually at all. That

was a misstatement. We have never been authorized to do merit

increases, Mr. Chairman.

In addition to the COLA’s, there is $1.3 million in there which

is the result of underfunding in the past. We have not been funded

at our funded level in fact.

Senator BENNETT. I see.

Mr. ABRECHT. There is some attrition that has always been

counted on and fortunately, thanks to the support of the committee

in providing pay parity for our people in this last year, our attrition

has gotten very, very low. We do not anticipate that we are going

to lose nearly as many people.

So the float that you get while you are replacing somebody who

attrites is not going to be there this year.

Senator BENNETT. I see, OK.

Mr. ABRECHT. So in order to fund the budget at the 1,251 level

we are going to need more money than we had in the past year,

because we really were underfunded.

Senator BENNETT. I see, OK.
15

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, Bruce Holmberg just handed me a

note that the assumptions that we use is a 4.3 percent COLA and

a half percent comparability pay, the assumptions that went into

this budget.

Senator BENNETT. I will not argue with whoever does the numbers, but that strikes me as a pretty high COLA in an age when,

according to Alan Greenspan, inflation is dead and we are nonetheless adjusting for it at the rate of 4 percent. That is fairly high.

Mr. ZIGLAR. We may have some money to give back to you.

Senator BENNETT. Well, I will not hold my breath for that.

[Laughter.]

Mr. ABRECHT. My only hope there, Mr. Chairman, is that—and

this is my mantra that you have heard for many years—that we

remain comparable with the executive branch.

Senator BENNETT. Right.

Mr. ABRECHT. Whatever you give, whatever the government ultimately gives to the executive branch, that we remain there.

Senator BENNETT. I think that is legitimate, and that is not an

issue that we can address.

You made reference to the rest of the increases coming out of a

shifting of responsibility from the Sergeant at Arms to the police.

Mr. ZIGLAR. A large part of it, not the entire amount.

Senator BENNETT. And of course that raises the question, is the

Sergeant at Arms budget going to reflect a decrease by virtue of

that shift? I have asked that question before and they have been

unable to find the decrease. They just find the increase somehow.

Are we going to see that again this year?

Mr. ZIGLAR. It is a $500,000 number. This year, as you know, the

Sergeant at Arms is asking for a relatively sizable increase that is

reflective largely of technology and those sorts of things. So the answer is we are not going to plan to give $500,000 or $600,000 to

the police this year, but we will try to parse it and respond to you

when we come back on March 24th.

SECURITY UPGRADE PROJECT

Senator BENNETT. Can you talk to us about your security upgrade project?

Mr. ABRECHT. Absolutely. You will recall the context here was

that in 1995 a substantial survey of the Capitol grounds, a security

survey of the whole complex, was accomplished jointly with United

States Secret Service. We had planned to do a review of that study

in 1998, and after the tragedy on July 24th we moved that up. We

planned to do it in the fall and we started working on it right

away.

We brought in experts from several of the large executive branch

agencies. The United States Marshals were very helpful, the Secret

Service, people who have done this for the executive branch.

From that we developed a number of recommendations, which ultimately were pared down some in the meetings with various committees and $106 million was included in the omnibus supplemental, including $25 million for personnel, which we have already

discussed. The rest of it was primarily physical security upgrades,

although there is some money in there to support the new officers,
16

for equipment for them, for vests, for new weapons. But the bulk

of it goes to physical security in a number of areas.

Most of them I think have some law enforcement sensitivity, so

I would rather not go into——

Senator BENNETT. Right.

Mr. ABRECHT (continuing). The nitty-gritty details. But obviously

we are looking to protect the Congress against terrorists, terrorism

fundamentally, in all the different ways that the Congress could be

assaulted from a terrorist standpoint. We tried to address every

one of them in this study.

Senator BENNETT. Senator Feinstein.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

BOOZ-ALLEN AND HAMILTON REPORT

I wanted to go and just speak for a moment about some of the

Booz-Allen and Hamilton recommendations. It is my understanding

that the report contains some specific recommendations on how you

can improve operations in administrative areas. The chairman referred to certain cross-cutting issues. I think the report also found

that the current organizational structure neither facilitates communications between the operations and the administrative support

functions nor integrates administrative support functions into the

management process.

It went on to say that as an organization the Capitol Police does

not utilize formal strategic planning to help plan and direct

changes in current administrative support activities which are

needed to support future operational demands, and that your support operations lack current and complete operating policies and

procedures.

The report goes on to recommend that you create an assistant

chief for administration, who would report directly to the police

chief. In making this recommendation, they note that potential

candidates should have operational and administrative experience.

In addition, they say this individual should possess strong managerial skills, have a vision and an understanding of how an effective

and efficient administrative structure can support police operations.

They also say that this individual should institute a formal strategic planning process for administrative operations and that the

objective should be a mission and vision for operations within the

department. They identify key administrative functions that need

to be developed and maintained with formalized policies and procedures that need to be followed to carry out the functions.

My questions are: Do you agree with those recommendations and

are you going to establish the position?

Mr. ABRECHT. I think that is one of the subjects that the Board

will clearly be discussing on Friday. We have drafted a reorganization plan that follows Booz-Allen’s recommendations almost to the

letter, with some very minor tweaks based on things that we know

that they perhaps do not know about our organization, and we are

going to be discussing that with the Board. At least that is my—

chairman?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Senator, at an intellectual level, if the facts as presented in the report are accurate—and I have not had the oppor-
17

tunity, quite frankly, to do that level of due diligence on the Police

Department. If the facts as presented are correct in terms of lack

of integration of administrative functions and that sort of thing,

then I think those recommendations are completely legitimate.

I want to—and I come from a management background—do due

diligence, and that is one of the reasons we are going to have six

or seven people from Booz-Allen there on Friday morning, to ask

a lot of questions and to put them to the proof that that is in fact

the case. And if it is the case, absolutely I agree that that is what

we need to do.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am sort of familiar in my past life with police departments. It was my highest priority as mayor.

Senator BENNETT. I think that is an understatement.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I brought the department up to its fully

authorized strength and really pushed to bring it into the modern

age. That is one of the most difficult things for police to do. I recognize that, and I do not want to be overly critical.

I do, just from what I have read, sense that there is a deficit here

and that that has to be recognized and it has to be met in some

way. I guess what I want you to know is I am going to be watching

to see if it happens.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Would you mind being a consultant? [Laughter.]

Mr. ABRECHT. I assure you it is going to happen, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Because for some reason this always seems

to threaten people and it should not. It really should not. And particularly here, because some of the concerns that you mentioned,

Chief, are really very valid concerns, you know, and I think you

need the most up to date and the best structure here.

Well, let me ask, put the question this way. With respect to the

absence of strategic planning for your administrative functions, do

you agree with the conclusion of the report that you need to anticipate, anticipate modifying existing administrative capabilities to

support your operations?

Mr. ABRECHT. Absolutely. I think—I hope the Congress will remember that we asked for this study. We determined that these

weaknesses existed long before I ever heard of the name BoozAllen. We determined that we need to strengthen these three areas

of our operation, that we had devoted perhaps too much of our resources to making sure that we got the job done and not enough

to making sure that our infrastructure was in place.

We asked that there be a study to give us some guidance on this,

and that is exactly what this is and we intend to implement this

aggressively and get it done in the immediate future.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good.

Mr. ABRECHT. I assure you, I am not threatened by this study.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, no, I did not say you. I just said my experience has been that people are threatened by it.

Mr. ABRECHT. We want to get these problems behind us. I think

a lot of them are a result of things outside, that have happened

outside of our control. We took over the personnel functions of this

Police Department, which used to be split between the Senate Disbursing Office and the House Finance Office, and we became our

own personnel enterprise and we underresourced that when we
18

took it over and we did not take the time and put enough effort

into getting it up to speed.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me ask another question. Do you

currently have the resources, both in terms of technical skills and

available staff, to initiate the kind of review that is necessary to

really look at this?

Mr. ZIGLAR. The answer is that by and large I believe we do, but

we will be reaching outside for some help. The form of that help

is yet to be determined. But I feel like it is good to have somebody

on the outside looking in and helping you with that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you have the budget to do that? I mean,

it is budgeted?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Yes.

Mr. ABRECHT. The security enhancement plan contains a contingency item where there is some money for studies, and we intend

to use, with the committee’s approval, some very small portion of

that to assist us to facilitate these management studies and improvements.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on the financial system

itself. May I submit them for the record and ask them to answer

them?

Senator BENNETT. Absolutely.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. We appreciate your

being here.

Again, we appreciate the openness with which the Capitol Police

has addressed these problems. It is very refreshing. We want to be

as helpful as we can.

Mr. ZIGLAR. We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to coming back and

telling you of the progress that we have made.

Senator BENNETT. Very good.

[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 DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. With respect to the lack of an efficient financial management system,

Booz-Allen, & Hamilton felt that a needs assessment would be the first step in determining the future financial needs of the USCP. Has the USCP conducted a comprehensive needs assessment to determine your future system capabilities?

Answer. Over a year ago, the USCP Office of Financial Management began a preliminary needs assessment by investigating the Federal Financial Management Systems used by other federal agencies and cross-servicing options. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was cooperative and anxious to provide assistance in the solution of the USCP’s financial management system deficiencies. The financial management system used by GAO was also widely used and accepted throughout the federal financial community.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) Financial Management System (FMS) is

American Management Systems (AMS) software available on the GSA Financial

Management System Software (FMSS) schedule. As a contractor on this schedule,

the system is certified by the Operations Compatibility Verification Team consisting

of representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Treasury, and the General Services Administration as being compliant with the Joint Financial Managers Improvement Program (JFMIP) Core Financial System requirements which includes the Federal Managers’ Financial Improvement Act (FMFIA),

CFO Act, and OMB Circulars A–127 and A–130 related to federal financial systems.
19

The AMS FMS is currently used by 38 federal agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center.

The remaining internal requirements relative to proprietary managerial reporting

within the USCP will be developed as part of the strategic planning process. The

FMS System has the capability to provide for such reporting.

Currently, the USCP is in the process of procuring a facilitator to develop a strategic plan, using the guidelines of the Government Performance and Results Act,

and organizational information from key USCP staff. The strategic plan will include

a comprehensive needs assessment to determine the future financial system requirements for the USCP.

Question. What were the results of the assessment?

The results of the assessment will be available at the completion of the USCP’s

strategic plan which is projected to be awarded and completed within six months.

Question. BAH also indicated that they thought that a cross-servicing arrangement would be the most efficient way to proceed, rather than the purchase by the

Capitol Police of a new system outright. Do you agree and are you currently pursuing a cross-servicing agreement?

Answer. If an existing federal financial system meets the future financial management needs of the USCP, to be determined in the USCP strategic plan, a cross-servicing agreement would be the most efficient way to proceed. The General Accounting

Office completed a cost comparison analysis based upon current USCP operations.

The GAO paper showed that significant savings would be achieved in salaries, contractor support services, licensing fees, and computer time through cross-servicing.

Further, this arrangement is consistent with the strategies contained in the Legislative Branch Financial Managers’ Council which promotes cross-servicing wherever

possible to achieve cost savings.

Question. What analysis was done to support such an arrangement?

Answer. An analysis was done by GAO based upon the current operation of the

USCP including the volume of USCP transactions. Cost estimates for two alternative cross-servicing arrangements were completed. An analysis of purchasing a

system for the USCP was not completed, however, the licensing fee for a cross-serviced USCP is $55,000 which is based on 25 percent of GAO’s licensing fee. A final

analysis will be completed with the USCP strategic plan.

Question. If the USCP enters into a cross-servicing arrangement, does the USCP

currently have the staffing both in terms of numbers and skills to effectively utilize

the enhanced capabilities?

Answer. The USCP does not have the staffing in terms of numbers or skills to

effectively implement and utilize the enhanced capabilities of a new financial management system. A reorganization plan has been proposed based upon the structure

of other small federal agencies, which includes establishing several key positions

with specific financial management skill sets. The plan includes positions to accommodate the additional workload to implement the recommendations of the BoozAllen and Hamilton Review and additional continuing financial management accountability, control, and planning duties. Although a cross-servicing arrangement

will provide the required hardware and software for a financial management system, the Capitol Police must have professionally trained staff to implement, operate,

and maintain the USCP financial information in the system. A reevaluation of the

reorganization plan will be completed with the development of the USCP strategic

plan.

(21)

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

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

CAPITOL

ACCOMPANIED BY:

MICHAEL G. TURNBULL, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

LYNNE THEISS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AMITA POOLE, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING

STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER

OPENING REMARKS

Senator BENNETT. All right, we will now hear from Mr.

Hantman.

Mr. HANTMAN. Change chairs?

Senator BENNETT. Change chairs.

[Pause.]

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. All right. Mr. Hantman, you were mercifully

ignored in the questions in the last panel, but I gather that will

not happen this time.

The Architect has requested $287.3 million and, excluding the

funds that Congress provided last year for the visitors center, this

is a 43 percent increase over the fiscal 1999 level, and we will obviously want to hear about that.

Now, you are joined by the new Assistant Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Turnbull, who joined the office last June. Mr. Turnbull, we

welcome you to your first hearing.

Mr. Pregnall, we welcome you as well.

Now, in addition to the Y2K issue, the committee’s top priority

for the Architect of the Capitol is the implementation of a financial

management system that meets Federal accounting standards. The

system that is chosen must be designed and utilized to provide the

financial information required by the authorization and appropriations committees. It is critical, given the increase in funds and

projects that the Architect is engaged in.

Mr. Hantman is a very ambitious Architect and has undertaken

a number of projects, some of which are long overdue, and we congratulate you, sir, on your initiative in doing that. The Capitol visitors center of course is one of those, but it is also a project that

clearly needs a good accounting system so that we can understand

where we are and what we are getting for that.

We have received your testimony, sir. We will include it in the

record in its entirety.

Senator Feinstein, do you have any comments before we go to the

witness?

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, please go ahead.

Senator BENNETT. All right. Mr. Hantman, we are here to hear

what you have to tell us.
22

OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course I am

pleased to appear here. This is the third time I have appeared before this committee and I certainly look forward to continuing to

work with you and with Senator Feinstein. I think the links between the Rules Committee and this committee are very important,

and I look forward to working with you in making sure that we

have that tie-in.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the body of our written statement pretty well focuses on the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request and we certainly intend to talk about that today. But there

are also several appendices to the statement that really deal with

issues that are fundamental to how we are restructuring this agency. A lot of changes have occurred.

I have been here 2 years now as of last month and a lot of new

criteria, Congressional responsibilities, have been placed upon this

agency that did not exist before—the Congressional Accountability

Act, the AOC Human Resources Act. All of these things—the advent of unionization on the Hill, the issues of life safety, of security,

are things that really have come to the fore much more so than

they had in the past. All of these things are touched upon in specific appendices related to the financial analysis.

But what I would like to do is give you kind of an overview on

some of these issues, talk about them, and then come back to some

of the clear, fundamental building blocks we need to address—obviously, Y2K, the FMS system, and several of the other issues.

BOTANIC GARDEN RECONSTRUCTION

First, on the Capitol side, you joined us, Mr. Chairman, to celebrate the groundbreaking for the Botanic Garden Conservatory

some months ago. I would like to report that that project was

awarded under budget. At this point in time we have Clark Construction out there, as you know. We met some of their officers at

the groundbreaking. They are proceeding very well.

Our goal is to have the construction completed by September of

the year 2000. Concurrently with that, the National Fund for the

U.S. Botanic Garden, which is a $10 million privately raised component of funding, to complete that block area, to have outdoor facilities such as interpretive learning centers and a first ladies garden and butterfly gardens, and things that work contiguously with

the Botanic Garden. That is scheduled to be constructed and completed concurrently with the Botanic Garden. In fact, the new

chairman, Theresa Heinz, we just met earlier this week on that

and she is very excited about this and hopefully raising some additional private funding, which we would have to change the legislation to be able to accept more funding from the private sector for

educational programs and things of this nature.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So we are excited about that. We think that project is moving

forward well.

[The statement follows:]
23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to present the

budget for the Architect of the Capitol. I look forward to continuing to work closely

with this Subcommittee under your leadership in an open, professional and constructive manner.

The body of this written statement focuses, of course, on this Agency’s fiscal year

2000 appropriation request. Some things, however, are not quantifiable even at a

budget hearing, but they are important to know. This is so because the framework

of our request, the foundation it is built upon, is fundamentally influenced by the

new direction this Agency is taking in response to Congress’ mandate to provide cost

effective quality service in support of its day to day activities.

We have, therefore, provided appendices to this statement that address issues

that are basic to how we are now doing business, and form part of the rationale

for various aspects of our operating costs and the capital budget. These appendices

also report on how the Agency is working to accomplish the legislative imperatives

that the Congress has directed us to conform to, including:

The AOC Human Resources Act, approved in 1994 which directs the Agency to

establish and maintain a personnel management system incorporating fundamental

principles found in modern personnel systems.

The Congressional Accountability Act which created the Office of Compliance and

the Compliance Board. The Accountability Act, among other initiatives, permitted

Capitol Hill employees to unionize for the first time and placed the AOC under obligations to meet occupational safety and health standards.

(a) Labor Management Relations

(b) Occupational Safety and Health (Life Safety)

(c) Civil Rights Laws

Security issues have continued to be a high priority. Funding has been provided

to this agency and the Capitol Police Board for a wide range of security initiatives.

These appendices therefore discuss these issues as well as providing overviews of

the issues of life safety, security, Agency re-engineering efforts, etc. as follows:

Appendix A—Life Safety

Appendix B—Security

Appendix C—AOC Human Resources Act

Appendix D—Congressional Accountability Act

Appendix E—Labor Relations

Appendix F—Re-engineering.—The first year of a three year buy out program approved in the Fiscal Year 1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act to facilitate

our re-engineering efforts has been defined in detail. Approval to proceed has been

received from the Senate and we are withholding implementation pending Committee on House Administration action, in accordance with the legislation.

Appendix G—Capital Projects

Appendix H—Year 2000 System Status

Appendix I—Financial Management System

All of the initiatives above are supported by our Vision Statement and Core Values developed through our strategic planning process:

Vision Statement.—We will be an innovative and efficient team dedicated to service excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the national treasures

entrusted to our care.

Core Values.—Service Excellence; Stewardship; Integrity; Professionalism; Creativity; Loyalty; Respect and Diversity; and Teamwork.

The detailed actions described in the appendices are focused on rebuilding this

Agency into a unified, yet flexible, responsive and quality oriented instrument of the

Congress. A brief summary of actions to date includes:

Capital Projects.—Initiating the planning, drawings, contracts and construction

for work on the $148.8 million of capital projects funded in fiscal year 1999 such

as:

—Renovation of Dirksen Senate Office Building.

—Replacement of East Plant Chillers.

—Rayburn Building Telecommunications and Fire Sprinklers.

—Replacement of Roof, Longworth House Office Building 6th and 7th Floors.

—Design of Upgrade to the Cable Television System.

—Capitol Visitors Center—Note: We are defining the scope for the first increment

of planning and validation work, as required by legislation, so that the authorization of funds can be sought from the committees having overview authority.
24

Also, a contract for renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory has been

awarded within budget and is now under construction. The contiguous privately

funded National Garden will follow shortly. Another significant project is the rehabilitation of the U.S. Capitol Dome. Initial portions of the study for necessary renovations of the Dome have been completed and a contract has been awarded within

the emergency appropriations budget allocation to perform the complex task of removing lead-based paint in the interstitial space between the inner and outer

domes, and, after study, repainting the metal. This will permit the necessary detailed inspection of all cast iron elements to clearly define the scope of work for subsequent phases. Actual work on the site is anticipated to commence in March, upon

approval to close the Rotunda for two to three weeks to erect the protective netting.

Operations, Personnel Policies and Procedures.—On the operations side we have

initiated programs to:

—Install the computer aided facility management system (CAFM) selected to

track, coordinate, record and evaluate work management cost and staffing data

throughout the campus, as well as to provide enhanced space management capabilities.

—Improve communications between the agency and our oversight entities, our clients, and other instrumentalities of Congress.

—Upgrade internal administrative systems to achieve a Year 2000 fix for our procurement, financial and inventory operations while working with the GAO and

other Legislative branch agencies to procure and implement a modern financial

management system.

—Continue to evaluate and make recommendations on necessary steps to provide

business continuity for Congressional operations in regards to internal and external items possibly affected by the year 2000 problem.

—Initiate an agency wide strategic planning process and implement the first segments of the re-engineering program developed through that process.

—Facilitate initiatives with Senate Rules and Administration, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as well as their counterparts on the House side, and the Capitol

Police, to coordinate services, and eliminate overlapping functions.

—Reorganize Central Staff to better support the work of all of our jurisdictions.

—Rebuild our Human Resources Management Division.

—Develop standardized policies and procedures for use by all AOC jurisdictions

across the campus.

—Provide management training programs for managers at all levels, as well as

developing training opportunities to further enhance skills of our employees.

Vision and Goals

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is important for the Congress to know the philosophical underpinnings of these efforts, the foundation we are building upon, because there is no ‘‘quick fix’’ solution to what is required to rebuild and re-engineer

business practices in this agency. Through our strategic planning process, we are

building an organization that will be able not only to support the day to day workings of both houses of the Congress in an equitable and professional manner, but

one that will be fully capable of performing its duties long after all of us have left

Capitol Hill. It is important for us to build not only for today but also for the future—not only in our capital and maintenance projects, but also to build the proper

team to perform the necessary day to day functions and services of this agency. This

effort requires flexibility, including developing the proper mix of in-house staff, contractors, (both private and public sector), and temporary employees to be called

upon as work load necessitates.

Congressionally Mandated Changes

Change is necessary to assure that this agency makes its values and its vision

part of our ‘‘corporate culture’’ so that all staff members truly make them the foundation of our work, the basis for how we do business. Many issues were identified

and mandated for change in the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, and

in the Congressional Accountability Act. These include the requirement to develop

human resources management programs consistent with the practices common

among other federal and private sector organizations. In response, this agency has

begun initiatives to: more clearly define job descriptions and job expectations so that

everyone will know the requirements to successfully perform their jobs; create a viable job performance and evaluation system so that constructive feedback can be

given to improve performance where necessary, and to recognize and acknowledge

those who provide quality service and work towards the achievement of our vision

and goals; assure that uniform and fair standards are developed, implemented and

used throughout the Agency to the greatest extent possible with respect to working
25

conditions, job postings, upward mobility, etc.; create a viable equal employment

and conciliatory programs function that can fairly and efficiently address employee

concerns in line with the Congressional Accountability Act; provide training opportunities to further enhance the trade and professional skills of our employees, including helping supervisors better communicate with, and monitor the work of,

those who report to them.

These initiatives are all in process and are part of the foundation upon which this

Agency is being rebuilt. The Congressional Accountability Act created the Office of

Compliance with the powers to monitor compliance with the Act, and granted the

employees of this agency, among others on Capitol Hill, the right to form unions.

As you are aware, AFSCME Local 26 has been designated to represent over 600 of

our custodial and labor employees, and we are in the process of working with the

union on a range of issues. Also, at this time, our Botanic Garden employees and

a group of our temporary plumbers have formed collective bargaining units and are

now represented by unions.

Review and Evaluation Methodology

In order to address these realities and comply with these laws, this Agency has

been undergoing an intensive review of all of its operations with the goal of continuously refining and improving the quality of our services to Congress and our visitors

to Capitol Hill, while at the same time responding to the requirements of the laws

addressed to our employees. As part of this review we are investigating how to minimize costs and maximize the efficient delivery of our services in fulfillment of our

fiduciary responsibilities to the American Taxpayer.

This is in line with recommendations regarding future restructuring of the Office

of the Architect of the Capitol, which included investigating sensible ways to

streamline the Architect’s operation and logical areas in which to involve the private

sector. Specifically, consideration of the private sector was suggested for routine

maintenance and remedial work, in addition to the major AOC projects which are

generally competitively awarded to private sector firms. Our on-going investigation

therefore includes in-depth evaluations of: Logical areas in which to involve the private sector; Internal opportunities to re-engineer and consolidate existing staff and

Opportunities to eliminate duplication of services with other instrumentalities of the

House and Senate.

To carry out this re-engineering process, this Agency has been authorized, subject

to approval by our oversight committees, to implement early out and buy out programs.

Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Overview

I would like to briefly address our fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Operating

Budget requested for fiscal year 2000, $168,366,000, represents a 10.7 percent increase in operating costs. Thirty eight percent is due to mandated pay and benefits

costs, thirty three percent is related to utility increases (mainly related to a 40 percent water and sewer increase), and 17 percent is related to information resources

management. It is hoped that future operating budget cost savings will be achieved

through a three (3) year re-engineering effort starting in fiscal year 1999 and continuing in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Savings will be reflected in subsequent budgets. As stated earlier, House approval to implement the first year of the program

is currently pending.

The request in the Capital Projects portion of the budget is significant,

$118,907,000. The magnitude of the fiscal year 2000 total for cyclical maintenance

projects is very much in line with what we had projected in the benchmark analysis

discussed in my last year’s budget presentations. That analysis indicated that a

‘‘campus-like’’ complex of this age, monumental quality and magnitude could expect

to expend an annual average of approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value

of the buildings and infrastructure. Based upon an estimated replacement value of

$3.6 billion, 1.7 percent would equate to an average target reinvestment level of

$61.0 million. Because of under investments in past years, we are now faced with

an above average balloon payment of $102.6 million for cyclical maintenance

projects. Each project must of course stand on its own, and we stand ready to discuss the validity of each of the 139 fiscal year 2000 projects at your convenience.

They have been categorized and prioritized into Life Safety, Security, etc., for the

purpose of analysis and decision making.

Significant project costs included in this request are the Renovation of the Dirksen Building, and on the House side, the Cannon Garage renovation and the House

Chamber Sound System. As I stated at last year’s hearing, the ongoing study of the

necessary repairs and repainting of the Capitol Dome would most likely lead to

identification of increased complexity, and scope of the project, and therefore, cost.
26

This project accounts for $28 million of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The

overall budget request is discussed in detail below. Several graphs follow which provide summary information on the budget request. The ‘‘Fiscal Year 2000 Operating

and Capital Budget by Categories’’ breaks out the operating and capital request by

significant categories. The ‘‘Fiscal Year 2000 Operating and Capital Budget’’ reflects

the history of the Architect of the Capitol’s budget since fiscal year 1993. The ‘‘Fiscal

Year 2000 Capital Requests by Category’’ reflects the capital project categories and

number of projects and funding requested in each.
27

In closing this introductory section Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are creating

a foundation of communication and commitment to efficient quality service that has

already begun to show positive results. I look forward to working with you and this

Subcommittee in the coming year.
28

ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to describe broadly the role

of the agency before I describe our fiscal year 2000 budget request and the changes

that I see on the horizon. By law, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)

is the agency responsible for the structural and mechanical care, maintenance,

cleaning, and operation of the buildings and facilities supporting the Congress, including the Capitol Power Plant. This responsibility extends to the Botanic Garden,

the structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library of Congress

Buildings and Grounds, as well as the Supreme Court Building and grounds which

is funded in a different appropriation bill. The office also undertakes the design and

construction of new facilities and the alteration of existing facilities.

This Agency has focused significant energy on its first strategic planning process.

The initial steps of this process involved seeking and considering guidance from this

Committee as well as our other oversight bodies, and have led to the development

of a vision of how we should proceed to structure our organization to deliver quality

services to the Congress. The next steps in this process include developing specific

action plans to achieve our stated goals. A guiding philosophy in this strategic planning process includes the need to be responsive to our oversight bodies.

In performing our role, the AOC utilizes staff and private consultant expertise to

provide the Congress with professional, timely and cost effective recommendations.

The AOC also manages trade and service personnel who are charged with ensuring

that the building systems operate efficiently and reliably in support of Congressional activities. The AOC also administers a wide variety of contracts for facility

maintenance, professional design, technical and other services.

Critical to achieving this role is the institutional knowledge that has accrued in

the agency. The value of the long term role of the Architect as a neutral and professional advocate for the physical environment of the Capitol Complex has been historically recognized by the Congress, most recently when it established a ten year

renewable term for the Architect. Such an advocacy role is no less appropriate for

the core professional and trades staff. The merit of maintaining a long-term view

for preserving and protecting the historical environment is self-evident. To the credit of the agency, Congressional activities have never been interrupted by failure of

any major building system. I might add parenthetically at this time that since taking office I have come to appreciate the value of the institutional knowledge that

permeates this agency. Considering the responsibilities of our Agency, those who

provide the services are our greatest asset in carrying out our mission to the Congress. All re-engineering efforts we undertake recognize the devotion and service of

our employees to the agency and to the Congress over many years and that they

are to be treated, in a considered, caring and humane manner. The attached graph

‘‘Full-Time Equivalent Employment Budget’’ reflects the actual and projected reductions in the Architect of the Capitol’s employment.
29

It goes without saying that many of the Congressional buildings are national

treasures and require intimate knowledge and significant planning for their preservation. The U.S. Capitol, which is ‘‘the people’s building,’’ for example, is a unique

combination of National Capitol, museum, office building, meeting center, ceremonial site, and tourist attraction. The building’s systems are required to support all

of these activities while maintaining a secure and safe environment, and its architectural design, decorative arts and historical significance must all be carefully considered before undertaking any work or implementing any changes to the building.

Another benefit of the neutral, bicameral role of the AOC is the ability to provide

technical and professional coordination of ‘‘joint’’ activities. Over the years, the role

of the office has broadened as a result. There are now functions and activities, such

as the shuttle service and telecommunications, as well as Inaugural and Rotunda

ceremonies, conducted or supported by the AOC, that are often not recognized as

being within the scope of the office’s professional, architectural and engineering

roles, yet the Congress has acknowledged the merit of the AOC’s neutral, bicameral

coordination capacity.

For over 200 years, an officer discharging the role of the Architect of the Capitol

has provided to the Congress credible, professional expertise on these matters. During this time, the institution of the Congress has been served by an agency that has

responded to changing Congressional needs, and will continue to do so.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 OPERATING BUDGET

The past two years’ appropriations requests were based on a comprehensive agency-wide planning and coordination process including all cyclical maintenance

projects and building system enhancements. The thorough, systematic and programmed analysis led to a proposed five-year capital budget based on that planning.

The current request is prioritized into the categories of Life Safety, Security, Cyclical Maintenance, Technology and Management Systems, etc. I will now discuss our

fiscal year 2000 budget request in detail. There are two major components to this

budget request: an Operating Budget and a Capital Budget, as described below. The

total budget that I bring to this Committee today amounts to $287,273,000, comprised of $168,366,000 for operating costs and $118,907,000 for capital costs. That

amount, adjusted to reduce the House items, totals $233,884,000, of which

$136,759,000 is for operating costs and $97,125,000 is for capital costs.

Increases in the costs that comprise the operating budget totaling $168,366,000—

that is, those costs that support operations and maintenance, including salaries,

have risen by 10.7 percent. Most of this increase is attributed to increases in per-
30

sonal services, $6,162,000, utilities, $5,418,000, (which is mainly due to the 40 percent increase in water and sewer rates) and $2,765,000 for information resource

management. Increases for the maintenance of fire and life safety systems and other

workload and price level changes have also been requested.

There are opportunities for future savings within our operations budget, some of

which will require modest investments to achieve, and others which we are proceeding with at this time. Under the overall category of ‘‘utilities,’’ we are confident

that investing in modern automated control systems at the Power Plant will lead

to more efficient use of fuels, and reduce the need for staff that presently manually

monitor the heating and cooling equipment. We are presently evaluating two dozen

proposals from firms to design these systems. Additionally, we recently completed

the installation of energy efficient lighting fixtures across the campus. These lighting fixtures are already saving electrical energy. But the true savings will not be

realized until after the contractor is reimbursed for the installation cost over an

eight year period. As required by the Fiscal Year 1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, fiscal year 2000 funds have been requested to perform an energy survey of all Congressional buildings to identify energy conservation measures to

achieve a 20 percent energy reduction by 2005. Further, although funds are not requested in this budget, we are proposing to our authorizing committees that a public/private partnership be created to build a co-generation plant to assure an inexpensive and constant electrical source for the future.

The following table indicates these increases by appropriation.
31

Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Request Change

FTE Dollars FTE Dollars FTE Dollars

Capitol Buildings Operating Budget ........................................................................ 388 32,938,000 388 39,391,000 ........................ ∂6,453,000Capitol Grounds Operating Budget .......................................................................... 75 5,126,000 75 5,378,000 ........................ ∂252,000Senate Office Buildings Operating Budget ............................................................. 609 37,884,000 609 39,828,000 ........................ ∂1,944,000House Office Buildings Operating Budget .............................................................. 649 30,115,000 649 31,607,000 ........................ ∂1,492,000Capitol Power Plant Operating Budget .................................................................... 97 32,529,000 97 38,318,000 ........................ ∂5,789,000Library Buildings & Grounds Operating Budget ..................................................... 144 9,505,000 144 10,466,000 ........................ ∂961,000Botanic Garden Operating Budget ........................................................................... 50 3,052,000 50 3,378,000 ........................ ∂326,000

Total ............................................................................................................ 2,012 151,149,000 2,012 168,366, 000 ........................ ∂17,217,000
32

FISCAL YEAR 2000 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET

The fiscal year 2000 capital budget request I present to you today flows from the

five-year capital budget presented by this agency. It is grounded in a comprehensive

and systematic agency-wide planning effort with in-depth involvement by all of the

agency’s clients. On the Senate side we included the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate. On the House side, we included the Sergeant at Arms, the

Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk of the House. The U.S. Capitol Police

provided a detailed outline of their needs, and the Librarian of Congress was also

extensively involved. A total of 209 capital projects have been identified for the five

year period.

There is a need to provide the Congress with such a five-year capital improvement

budget to assist the Congress in making the wisest and best informed financial

judgments based on a formal evaluation of future cost implications and with the assurance that we have undertaken a rigorous examination of related needs.

The projects included in this budget, therefore, reflect all the needs that have

been identified to date. We reviewed all of the projects that were requested and not

funded last fiscal year to determine if they should be included in this year’s request.

We also closely examined all those projects that, based on last year’s plan, had been

projected for this fiscal year’s request to make sure that their inclusion was also

still valid. As stated above, also included are several significant new projects that

were not envisioned last year for this budget. These are primarily in the fire and

life safety areas and also include several client initiatives. We have adjusted the out

years accordingly and I will continue to evaluate these needs and to update them

to ensure that the capital budget is responsive to budgetary issues, programmatic

changes, the condition of the buildings and their systems, and any other needs that

may arise.

At prior hearings, we discussed the potential of a future ‘‘balloon payment’’ that

might result from the accumulated costs of deferred maintenance. I indicated that

based on several infrastructure re-investment models we were targeting an average

annual reinvestment rate of approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value as

an order of magnitude funding level for the Capitol complex. Last year that figure

amounted to roughly $59.3 million, which was in line with the $60,500,000 that we

had requested for reinvestment. The actual funding that was approved totaled

$43,700,000, thus leaving a one year reinvestment funding gap of $16,800,000.

Based on the 1.7 percent benchmark, the reinvestment gap for fiscal years 1993

through 1999 totals more than $155 million. For this reason we are requesting

funds in fiscal year 2000 and projecting requirements in fiscal year 2001 that exceed

the average reinvestment benchmark. The attached graph ‘‘Cyclical Maintenance

and Building Renovations’’ charts the 1.7 percent benchmark and the actual projected reinvestment in the Capitol complex. Also attached is a table on reinvestment

‘‘Benchmark Data’’.
33

Architect of the Capitol benchmark data

[Fiscal year 2000 funding levels]

Current Facility Replacement Value ........................................ $3,600,000,000

Annual renewal

percentage

AOC Benchmark (Based on Universities of Illinois, Michigan, and Stanford and the Army Corps of Engineers) ........ 1.7

Army Corps of Engineers (Budget Objective) .......................... 1.75

University Federal Research Cost Recovery (OMB A–21) ...... 2.0

Conservative Commercial Depreciation at 40 Years (IRS will

accept a faster depreciation rate) .......................................... 2.5

National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences:

Low Range ........................................................................... 1.5

High Range .......................................................................... 3.0

Fiscal year 2000 Capital Request (Request $118,900,000,

Less $16,300,000 Related to Technology/Management Systems, Security, and New Facilities) ...................................... 2.8

The capital budget that is being presented today is part of a multi-year funding

plan that provides the Congress a clear view of what it will cost to maintain the

Legislative Branch infrastructure in proper operating condition. The capital budget

also identifies improvements that respond to new legally imposed standards and

guidelines, such as improvements to meet the requirements of the Americans with

Disabilities Act and the occupational safety and health standards especially as they

relate to life safety issues. There are also several projects that will enhance the operations of the Congress, as well as new projects requested by our clients to serve

their programmatic needs. Balancing the needs of maintaining the existing infrastructure while keeping pace with technological enhancements and program needs

is clearly costly and it is sometimes difficult to spread these costs out over time in

order to avoid significant peaks in the budgeting process. But I firmly believe that

deferring these infrastructure reinvestment costs in the short to mid term can ultimately lead to far greater costs in the future. We are all also aware of the effect
34

that technological pressures can have on aging building systems, especially from the

perspective of being capable of delivering new telecommunications technologies.

As discussed above, these projects have been categorized into similar types of

projects that reflect various initiatives that we are now faced with. These include

categories such as Life Safety, ADA, Security, Cyclical Maintenance, Technology—

Management Systems and Improvement. The Improvement category has been broken out to reflect ‘‘Client’’ requests and AOC initiatives. There are several client requests included in the Security and Life Safety categories.

The following table ‘‘Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request by Category’’ reflects the

fiscal year 2000 capital request and the number of projects in each category along

with the corresponding percentages. The same data is also reflected less the House

Office Buildings.

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST BY CATEGORY

Category Fiscal year

2000 request Percent No. ofprojects Percent

Excluding House office buildings

Fiscal year

2000 request Percent No. ofprojects Percent

Life safety ................................. $16,063,000 13.5 29 20.9 $9,556,000 9.9 18 15.9

ADA ........................................... 2,650,000 2.2 6 4.3 2,650,000 2.7 6 5.3

Security ..................................... 2,550,000 2.1 5 3.6 2,550,000 2.6 5 4.4

Cyclical maintenance/improvement ..................................... 18,870,000 15.9 5 3.6 18,420,000 19.0 4 3.6

Cyclical maintenance ............... 54,319,000 45.7 58 41.7 43,739,000 45.0 51 45.1

Technology/management systems ..................................... 9,250,000 7.8 9 6.5 9,250,000 9.5 9 8.0

Improvement:

AOC .................................. 4,400,000 3.7 12 8.6 4,340,000 4.5 11 9.7

Client ............................... 10,805,000 9.1 15 10.8 6,620,000 6.8 9 8.0

Total ............................ 118,907,000 100.0 139 100.0 97,125,000 100.0 113 100.0

A more detailed explanation of these categories follows.

Life Safety—These are programs essential for complying with occupational safety

and health standards, environmental and hazardous material protection, fire code

compliance, and other regulatory matters affecting the general health and welfare

of building occupants. The Congressional Accountability Act has placed significant

emphasis on ensuring that the Capitol complex is free of hazards to the Members,

Senators, staff and visitors.

ADA—These are programs essential for complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Passage of the Congressional Accountability Act has reinforced

the resolve to ensure that the Capitol complex is free of barriers to the Members,

Senators, staff and visitors.

Security—These are programs to meet the needs created by increased terrorist activity throughout the world. As a result there is a heightened sensitivity toward

threats to security at the Capitol complex. In addition there are security needs to

protect property such as the collections at the Library of Congress.

Cyclical Maintenance—Several of the buildings in the Capitol complex are reaching an age and condition that necessitate major renovation or replacement of building systems. Various improvements are recommended to assure that these building

systems continue to provide service to occupants.

Technology—Management Systems—These are programs that reflect the internal

(AOC) use of computer applications and telecommunications systems to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

Improvement—Technology is changing far more rapidly than our existing building

infrastructures can support and adapt to. This is especially true in the rapidly expanding area of telecommunications, but there is a corollary effect that is felt in any

building system that uses any sort of electronic technology for operation or support.

These are programs that reflect either the replacement of existing building systems

to generate a significant operational improvement or benefit, or the installation of

a new type of technology or system to create such an improvement or benefit.

It is important to note that over $12.5 million of the $118.9 million requested in

fiscal year 2000 is for capital projects related directly to client requests, i.e.,

$6,350,000 for the Library of Congress, $5,380,000 for the House Chief Administra-
35

tive Officer and the $785,000 balance by various Senate and House offices. I should

point out that 6 major projects account for over 55 percent of the capital budget request: the Capitol Dome Project ($28 million), which is based on the parts of the

ongoing project studies that have been completed to date, the Dirksen Building Renovation ($18 million), the Cannon Garage Renovation ($9 million), the Russell Subway Renovation ($6 million), and the replacement of Chillers at the Capitol Power

Plant ($5 million).

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Architect of the Capitol also has been

prioritized as directed by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. I

have sub-divided the former three-tiered system further to give greater detail to the

Committees for their decision-making. The requested items now are identified by

the following priority levels: 1–A, 1–B, 1–C, and 2–A, 2–B, and so on through 3–

C at the lowest end of the priority scale.

Both the categories and priorities will assist the Committee in its decision-making

process. Clearly this request is large, and I am aware of the overall budgetary constraints and the realities of providing funding for all these requests. I want to assure the Committee that we will work with you and provide our best recommendations as the budget review process proceeds.

It is also important to recognize that these requirements do not simply disappear

if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year 2000 are deferred, the costs to accomplish them will rise due to added deterioration, increased maintenance costs to sustain the systems in the interim, inflation, and fluctuations in market conditions.

The deferred projects also will then add to the fiscal year 2001 funding need.

In past testimony, I detailed many of the reasons that there was such a large increase in the funding level required for the maintenance of our campus infrastructure. Rather than repeat those reasons verbatim, I will highlight them here:

—Replacement of Aging Building Systems.—Several of the buildings in the Capitol

complex are reaching an age and condition that require major renovation or replacement of building systems.

—Technological Advances.—Technology, especially in telecommunications, is

changing far more rapidly than our existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to.

—Regulatory Compliance Requirements.—Programs essential for complying with

the Americans with Disabilities Act, the occupational safety and health standards, security, life/safety, and environmental and hazardous material protection

have received very high priority in terms of advancing the timetables for completion due largely to passage of the Congressional Accountability Act.

—Security.—Terrorist activity throughout the world has increased, and as a result

there is a heightened sensitivity toward threats to security at the Capitol complex.

—Infrastructure Reinvestment.—Replacement Value—We have developed an annual investment rate of 1.7 percent of the replacement value of the Capitol complex (exclusive of new construction) as an order of magnitude guide for capital

funding levels. In comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request related to existing

facilities of $102.6 million is above this target due to the funding gaps discussed

earlier.

The following table summarizes the funding levels presented in the five-year capital budget by category. Again, these categories include Life Safety, ADA, Security,

Cyclical Maintenance requirements, Technology and Management Systems, and infrastructure Improvements. These five year projections will be reviewed, modified

and updated each year as new information becomes available through detailed studies and evolving needs and priorities.
36

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTIONS

Category Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2001 Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Five Year Total

Life Safety ................................................................................................................ $16,063,000 $19,910,000 $2,369,000 $800,000 $600,000 $39,742,000ADA ........................................................................................................................... 2,650,000 3,050,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 300,000 9,700,000Security ..................................................................................................................... 2,550,000 19,312,000 1,850,000 13,550,000 550,000 37,812,000Cyclical Maintenance—Improvement ...................................................................... 18,870,000 25,059,000 1,950,000 5,575,000 5,350,000 56,804,000Cyclical Maintenance ............................................................................................... 54,319,000 38,437,000 23,664,000 30,324,000 17,336,000 164,080,000Technology/Management Systems ............................................................................ 9,250,000 3,560,000 2,480,000 2,210,000 1,340,000 18,840,000Improvement:

AOC .................................................................................................................. 4,400,000 17,026,000 3,894,000 4,150,000 2,100,000 31,570,000Client ............................................................................................................... 10,805,000 23,155,000 28,200,000 56,050,000 13,800,000 132,010,000

Total ............................................................................................................ 118,907,000 149,509,000 66,257,000 114,509,000 41,376,000 490,558,000
37

Mr. Chairman, I also wish to point out that this budget was prepared with the

intent of requesting planning and design funding well in advance of large renovation

and construction projects such as replacing the legislative call system and clocks,

upgrading air-conditioning—East Front Capitol, replacing high voltage switch gear

and cables, House Chamber improvements, Senate Garage renovations, thermal

storage and upgrading the book conveyor system in the Jefferson and Adams Buildings. Only design funding is requested for these large capital projects in fiscal year

2000 in order to prepare detailed designs and firm cost estimates for justifying appropriations requests for construction in later years.

The following table indicates the capital budget increases for fiscal year 2000.

Capital Projects Fiscal Year 1999 Budget

Fiscal Year 2000 Request Change Major

Projects

Capitol Buildings: Capital Budget—39

projects.

$10,745,000 $48,190,000 ∂$37,455,000 Rehabilitate Dome—

$28,000,000; HRMD

Systems Development—$3,600,000; Financial Management

System—$3,300,000;

Energy Survey of Capitol Complex—

$2,000,000.

Capitol Grounds: Capital Budget—5

projects.

920,000 615,000 –305,000 ADA Requirements—

$330,000; Renovation

of Former DC

Streetlights—$100,000.

Senate Office Buildings: Capital Budget—28 projects.16,260,000 31,564,000 ∂15,304,000 Renovate Mechanical,

Telecom & Restrooms,

DSOB—$18,000,000;

Upgrade Russell-Capitol

Subway—$6,000,000.

House Office Buildings: Capital Budget—26 projects.12,024,000 21,782,000 ∂9,758,000 N/A.

Capitol Power Plant: Capital Budget—

10 projects.

5,645,000 6,757,000 ∂1,112,000 East Plant Chiller Replacement—

$5,000,000; Optimization of CPP Operations—$500,000;

Thermal Storage Facility—$500,000.

Library Buildings & Grounds: Capital

Budget—25 projects.

3,167,000 9,405,000 ∂6,238,000 Construct Book Storage

Modules 2,3, & 4 Ft.

Meade—$4,000,000;

Collections Security—

$1,000,000.

Botanic Garden: Capital Budget—6

projects.

.......................... 594,000 ∂594,000 N/A.

Total ........................................ 48,761,000 118,907,000 ∂70,146,0 00

I assure you that I will continue to work closely with you and the Committee to

review these requests to achieve a rational and adequate funding level to support

the needs of Congress.

STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING EFFORT: GOALS AND PROCESSES FOR SENSIBLE AGENCY

RE-ENGINEERING

Clearly one of the greatest changes facing this agency has been to respond to the

question of how to determine the appropriate resource levels necessary to meet our

customers’ needs. Recognizing that over the past seven years this agency has reduced FTE’s by over 16 percent, we began a thorough re-examination of our agency

through a management-wide strategic planning process. With the core values defined, and focusing on service excellence, we evaluated alternatives to see what

would be required to fulfill our congressional support role: including employing technology and best business practices, and the realignment of resources to fulfill our

role. A second major aspect of this process has been to strengthen lines of clear and

open communications between this agency and other support agencies as well as key
38

Committees and staff. We have begun the implementation of necessary modern and

efficient business procedures and systems to bring this agency into the 21st century.

We have addressed these concerns at every level in this initiative, and I would

like to describe in some detail the results of our efforts thus far. In order to make

reasoned and balanced recommendations to Congress I initiated a review and evaluation of three basic sources of information, each of which is required in order to

develop a balanced profile of how the agency should be constituted and what policies

and recommendations should be formulated. The first source of information was to

speak with every individual within the agency. Soon after I took office I met personally with every key manager, and scheduled ‘‘town hall’’ type of meetings with all

other members of the agency. I sought to hear what every AOC person thought

about the present status of the agency and what the future direction of the agency

should be. I encouraged communication, in private if necessary, on areas where staff

were aware or suspicious of fraudulent, wasteful or abusive actions, and I also encouraged open expression of their views of how the agency’s policies, procedures and

management level respected employee rights and promoted a productive and positive workplace.

The second source of information was through meeting with Senators and their

staffs to see how well we were performing in terms of customer satisfaction. I also

opened dialogues with my fellow House and Senate officers, including the Senate

Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate, seeking areas where we might

together improve service delivery, or align our missions and structures more logically to eliminate duplicative efforts.

Finally, the third source of information was to continue obtaining, reviewing and

analyzing outside impartial resource information. I have broadened the scope of our

preliminary peer group benchmarking analyses to include virtually all maintenance

and technical functions. To carry out this peer group benchmarking, we embarked

on a series of interviews with major corporations, building management and trade

research organizations, and government agencies to see how we compare in terms

of organizational philosophy, the relative mix of in-house and outsourced functions,

the use of computerized facility management systems, and the types of maintenance

and operations standards and performance metrics they use. Benchmarking and information gathering efforts will continue and be constantly updated.

I have been reviewing and evaluating our operations, especially as they relate to

quality service delivery, efficiency and who delivers each service. The process has

involved a task force composed of the Superintendents of the House and Senate Office Buildings, and the Capitol Building, as well as the other jurisdictional areas

within the agency. What I found was that significant re-engineering has already occurred throughout many areas of our jurisdiction. Some general examples include:

—Changing tours of duties to accommodate reduced FTE’s and still respond to

Congressional needs

—A consolidation of shops within both the House and Senate office buildings allowed for a reduced number of supervisors

—Use of Job Order Contracts to perform small renovation projects where it is

more advantageous to have private sector involvement rather than using our in

house forces

—Outsourcing of many areas of technical expertise, using private sector contractors for design, estimating, legal and dispute resolution services

—Increased use of private sector vendors for custodial services, having contracted

out the Ford Building on the House side and Webster Hall and Postal Square

on the Senate side

—Use of temporary staff for seasonal, short term, and renovation work rather

than staffing with long term FTE

These new processes have been tested and implemented, best business practices

confirmed with other facility managers, economic savings verified, and will be used

as models as we continue our evaluations.

I believe that the final configuration of this agency will maintain continuity of

services by using a balanced mix of core staff with their institutional knowledge,

quality assurance and dedication of service, as well as a flexible mix of outside vendors, private and public sector contractors, and temporary staff to provide cost effective, quality service to the Congress.

HUMAN FACTOR

At my request in 1997 the Senate authorized a limited two year buy out and early

retirement program for the Senate Restaurants. The goal was to quickly re-engineer

the functions of the Restaurant since the operation was losing money. That process

was sensitively handled in conjunction with OPM, and some 40 employees opted to
39

take early outs and buy outs. As a result we were able to re-engineer the Restaurant functions and we are now greatly reducing costs. We learned through this

experience that with proper planning and implementation these are effective tools

for re-engineering, and in fiscal year 1998 I proposed using this program as a model

for additional efficiency initiatives. Both the House and the Senate agreed to a three

year buy out-early out authority for selected areas of the agency with approval necessary for the initiatives for each of the three years. A plan was prepared and presented for the first years re-engineering program utilizing this authority. To date

we have received approval from the Senate and are awaiting the Committee on

House Administration’s approval.

As with the Restaurant program, funding for early out and buy out packages will

be derived from the existing staff’s budgeted costs for that fiscal year. The following

fiscal year would be the point where any significant cost savings would begin to accrue as a result of such re-engineering.

This type of program has been successfully used by the Library of Congress, the

Government Printing Office, and especially by the General Accounting Office, which

has given us much valuable information on their re-engineering efforts. The success

already experienced in these several areas demonstrates that such programs are a

valid way to achieve re-engineering and staffing mix adjustments. Significant re-engineering must take into account succession planning to retain skills and knowledge

lost when senior and long term staff leave. Some of that succession planning requires retraining existing staff to become multi-skilled workers to take on a multitude of tasks. Some retraining is also needed to respond to new technologies that

are advancing, especially in the areas of computer aided facilities management.

CONCLUSION

The task of completing the assessment of the agency’s strengths and weaknesses,

viewing them from a fresh perspective and striving to implement sensible and realistic conclusions is complex, but much progress has been made. I will continue with

this rigorous examination of our services, how they compare with the private sector,

and how the delivery of those services is viewed by our clients. This is an ongoing

process.

In conclusion, with respect to the capital budget, I readily acknowledge that the

amount requested is large, and understand the pressures to achieve a balanced Federal budget in fiscal year 2000. The nature of our aging facilities, security and technology improvement needs, life safety and other mandated issues, all weigh in favor

of funding the recommended projects. I know that this Committee and the Congress

realize, that many of these projects are clearly necessary to properly conserve the

‘‘peoples building’’ and supporting structures for future generations.

With respect to the operations budget as it relates to our mission and services,

I am committed to continuing the process of re-engineering the agency to develop

an organization that will deliver efficient and cost effective services in a professional, equitable and bicameral manner. I will continue to report periodically on our

progress as we examine these issues. I believe that we can become more effective

and more cost-efficient and while fulfilling the core mission of the agency. With respect to our dedicated employees, I believe that we must be sensitive to their needs

and humane as we proceed. The Office of the Architect of the Capitol will continue

to be professional and effective in meeting the challenges ahead.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I shall be pleased to respond to

any questions that you and the Committee may have.

APPENDIX A

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL INITIATIVES IN LIFE SAFETY, FISCAL YEAR 2000

APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several years, the agency has undertaken a host of life safety initiatives. In the past year, however, due to an unprecedented series of small fires within the House office buildings, focus has been brought to bear on fire safety programs. Although no serious damage or personal injury was caused by the fires, the

agency undertook a systematic and total review of the fire safety program. The

agency found a general lack of consistency with the manner in which fire safety systems had been planned and carried out in the past. Further, maintenance and certification of fire safety systems were found to be inadequate. Significant steps have

since been taken to correct these findings.
40

FIRE SAFETY PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The agency is in the process of developing and implementing a plan that is comprised of (a) restructuring and augmenting a newly centralized Life Safety Division

to assure more thorough oversight over all AOC life safety plans and projects; (b)

preparing to install upgraded fire protection systems in all the buildings that will

facilitate appropriate enhancements as they become technologically possible, and (c)

enhancing training to assure the proper inspection, testing and maintenance of installed systems. The potential acceleration of full implementation of this plan will

require support from the House leadership and the House Administration Committee in the development of a plan for interim displacement of Members and Committees to enable concentrated work in certain areas of the House side of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings. The overarching goal is to provide the Capitol

complex with fire protection systems that are state of the art insofar as possible in

these historic structures.

The ongoing program is a work in progress and is subject to comments, changes

and creative input. Progress to date and current design initiatives are described to

establish a basis of understanding of where we are and what remains to be done.

The program addresses three critical areas—Standards of Operation—Planning,

specification and internal controls for program development; Projects—Procedures,

technical support and impact analysis; Maintenance—Inspection, testing and maintenance protocols.

CONSULTANT SUPPORT FOR FIRE SAFETY PROGRAMS

In the preparation and presentation of fiscal 1998 and 1999 budget requests, life

safety projects were placed in their own project category, and were given the highest

priority. As each project was put forth for consideration, the agency established design/build criteria to meet current life safety standards while carefully integrating

these systems into the Capitol complex’s historic surroundings. Starting in March

1997 the agency procured the services of three firms to provide the technical expertise and the much needed resource support required within the Life Safety Division

to address program requirements.

In August 1997, the consulting firm of KCCT was hired to study exit doors

throughout the complex and prescribe a plan of correction to permit proper egress

in an emergency and facilitate the integrated installation of security devices as required by the U. S. Capitol Police. This work has included redefining the direction

doors swing open, replacement of revolving doors, frame modifications to house security hardware and redesigning vestibules to accommodate egress requirements, all

while maintaining a design that is compatible with the architectural surroundings.

At the present time, 40 doors in the Capitol, House and Senate Office Buildings

have been reconfigured to fully meet life safety requirements. Eighteen additional

doors are under construction and 23 more are being designed with construction to

begin in a phased manner as soon as funds become available. Doors under design

include the replacement of revolving and monumental doors throughout the Capitol

complex.

In October 1997, James Posey Associates was placed under contract to provide

professional services, material and equipment necessary to provide construction documents for sprinkler protection (and other services) within the Rayburn House Office Building. The agency is currently reviewing design drawings and will be going

for bid. This project will be tied in with the upgraded alarm system currently being

installed.

The firm of Gage-Babcock was placed under contract in September, 1998, to respond to task orders as listed:

—General Fire Protection Description of all facilities and complex wide fire and

emergency management systems; Omega Sprinkler recall Count; Building Fire

Protection System Survey and Descriptions and Design interconnectivity of various life safety systems and emergency master control centers

—Design the replacement for existing fire pumps in the U.S. Capitol, Russell Senate Office Building, and Longworth and Cannon House Office Buildings.

—Upgrade fire pump electrical feeds—Ford House Office Building.

—Emergency signs and lighting and egress study to establish way finding and directional/exit signage needs for each building’s fire protection and life safety and

occupancy loads throughout the complex.

—Prepare requirements for a fire alarm system upgrade for ADA compliance and

identify areas of refuge for each building and the requirements to meet National

Fire Protection Association standards in these areas.

—Design sprinkler systems for Capitol Power Plant administration building.
41

—Review and develop emergency operation/emergency preparedness plan for each

building, using initial work completed by the AOC, Sergeants at Arms and U.S.

Capitol Police.

—Provide sprinkler system design for the Longworth carry-out and adjacent sundry area.

At this time the agency has also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide architectural, engineering and

construction support services as required. The agency will be using their services

while commissioning life safety systems in the field, after all the software programming has been done to the annunciator panels for the alarms and the transponders

that are attached. The agency will also be using their services to execute the Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems Statement of Work. The Corps of Engineers,

after taking the information gathered by Gage-Babcock, will finalize the task order

document so that these services can be procured to maintain the existing systems

throughout the complex as well as those systems that are currently being installed.

While these are positive steps to remedy some of our concerns, there is much

more to be done. Projects need to be completed and/or current conditions within existing systems need to be corrected. Many timelines to complete projects currently

remain extended so as not to unduly inconvenience Members, but the agency looks

forward to working with the oversight committees, the Capitol Police Board, and

other involved parties to develop methods of accelerating their completion. The

agency is engaging systems once each zone is fully programmed, commissioned and

ready to go on-line without affecting the integrity of the rest of the system.

STANDARDS OF OPERATION

In July 1998, the agency moved the Fire Protection Engineering Design reporting

lines to the Executive Officer. This was done to strengthen their role in the organization so that the highest priority on such issues will be effectively implemented.

With this move, the agency’s program began to take a more cohesive shape and accelerate. The three critical success areas as outlined earlier were defined to meet

our mission needs, provide the services required from the division as well as give

the division performance measures for accountability. The Standards of Operation

created by this program provide the specifications for design, materials and installation of systems. It answers the questions such as, ‘‘What impact does a change in

code have on what is installed, what we are planning to install and what is under

design?’’ and, ‘‘What upgrades will it take for us to meet the new code; how long

would it take; what physical changes are required; and, what resource implications

are there?’’ It creates the commissioning plan, the field testing plan as well as the

records requirements to demonstrate that prescribed procedures were followed.

(These are currently being formulated for review by senior staff early in February.)

The Standards of Operation are the education portion of the program. As of this

fiscal year, the Grinnell Fire Protection System training program has been offered

for initial certification as well as a refresher course. Training courses are also being

offered to support Life Safety programs, the Emergency Preparedness Planning

process, etc for this fiscal year. This is the first time that such extensive training

has been offered in this area. As an example, each person installing a system will

be taught to know the cause and effect of not completing an entire zone or not installing all the elements required to make a system fully operational and ready to

be tested, programmed and commissioned rather than waiting to the end of the job.

The Standards of Operation are also being developed for the communication portion of the program. They will provide information on changes in technology,

changes in codes, etc. and what it may or may not mean to the effectiveness of existing systems.

MAINTENANCE

Under the agency’s program, there are two types of maintenance programs required to have a successful life safety program. Under the Standards of Operation,

records need be available and information will be provided by the Computer Assisted Facility Management (CAFM) system once it is fully installed and implemented. Preventive maintenance is the key to the longevity of the operating systems

throughout the complex as well as the life safety systems in place and being installed at the present time.

The agency’s program utilizes National Fire Protection Association maintenance

standards as a tool for the superintendents to schedule the necessary maintenance

and documentation. In addition, the Life Safety Division will be doing inspections

of maintenance work being performed as well as the relevant record keeping.
42

Finally, the agency is working with the other support offices to coordinate work

areas to keep egress paths clear and safe as part of an overall safety maintenance

program.

PROJECTS

There continue to be areas in the buildings that are unsprinklered. Funding has

been requested to design and complete areas in O’Neill, and Rayburn House Office

Buildings, and James Madison Building. Areas that have completed sprinkler designs in the Cannon Building are scheduled for completion by the end of this fiscal

year. The Rotunda in the Cannon Building and large Committee rooms in the Longworth and Cannon Buildings require an assessment of today’s fire protection technology to best meet the size of the space. Funding for areas of the Capitol that are

currently not sprinklered is being requested in the future; alternative locations and

methods of suppression must be found so that realistic time lines can be established

to enable Members to continue to function within the building.

Upgrades to the fire suppression systems for the food service areas that address

today’s cooking oils is requested in fiscal year 2000. A study to determine the need

to replace the exhaust hoods in the Capitol is requested for fiscal year 2000 with

the actual work to be accomplished in fiscal year 2002 (if required).

Smoke detectors are being placed in rooms within the Capitol as they are being

renovated. Unfortunately, to activate the detectors—even to the existing alarm system, requires that an entire zone be completed. Due to access problems (requiring

displacement of Members while work is occurring) there is not one completed zone

on the House side (four of them are three or fewer suites short of a complete zone).

A project impact analysis report procedure has been developed pertaining to the

life safety system impacts on renovation/improvement projects. This is a newly implemented process, part of the project planning portion of our program, and indicates typical areas of consideration that will be reviewed with each project involving

life safety elements. This tool will also be used when systems that support life safety are being modified such as water main replacements, room partitions installation,

and electrical system work.

It is believed that the work of KCCT and in-house design teams will remedy those

doors identified as requiring modifications to meet as many egress path corrections

as possible. (Historic preservation considerations are part of the assessment that is

being made, and where there may be a physical impact on the building the change

will be implemented to meet the standards while keeping the integrity of the building to the degree possible.) Funding is being requested in fiscal year 2000 to accomplish the installation and modifications as required. Gage-Babcock will be using this

information (on door solutions) as well as their own campus-wide survey to compile

signage requirements for exits and wayfinding for egress routes. The actual design

of the signs will be done by another firm currently under contract with this agency

for ADA signage needs.

The agency has assembled a Task Force to address emergency preparedness within the complex. Each Superintendent is represented and actively participating. The

first draft of the manual created with the U.S. Capitol Police and the Sergeants at

Arms is currently out for review and comment to update changes in programs, plans

and team members. The task assigned to Gage-Babcock, once comments are received

on this global plan, is to assist each operating unit within the AOC in tailoring a

manual to their operations.

SUMMARY

To meet the life safety goal set for this agency, alternative work processes have

been requested to be presented to accelerate the rate of life safety system upgrades

and implementation. Several major elements have been identified as currently impeding this process:

—Relocation space has not been identified to facilitate temporarily moving a

group of Members and/or Committees to provide access to their suites and meeting rooms. This applies throughout the House Office Buildings as well as the

Capitol;

—Design funding needs of a magnitude to be determined must be sought to complete all systems—alarms, smoke detectors, sprinklers, egress, etc, which needs

are currently being addressed;

—Manpower resources are not available in-house to install, commission and maintain systems in an acceptable manner while continuing to meet our day-to-day

operational requirements. External resources and the funds to support them

need to be provided as requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
43

APPENDIX B

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL SECURITY UPDATE, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

REQUEST

The past year was a seminal year for security in the Capitol Complex. From the

terrorist attacks both domestic and abroad, to the tragic deaths of Officers Chestnut

and Gibson, to the ever increasing threats to our facilities and the Leadership, a

heightened awareness and emphasis on planning and implementing appropriate security measures dominates the focus of the Capitol Police Board, the U.S. Capitol

Police and the AOC. The AOC concentrated on supporting the efforts of the Capitol

Police and the other law enforcement entities to improve the security within the

Capitol Complex.

The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,

1999, (Public Law 105–277), provided additional funding in the amount of $106 million for the implementation of the proposed security improvements. Plans are being

developed for the utilization of these funds which will be submitted to the appropriate committees for approval. Upon approval of the plans, a complete obligation

plan, which is also being developed, will be submitted to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations for review and approval. In anticipation of moving

forward with these plans in an expeditious manner, we are continuing to work closely with U.S. Capitol Police, Library of Congress Police, and even the U.S. Supreme

Court Police, to coordinate these significant efforts that are unprecedented in the

history of the Capitol Complex.

Other proposed short and long term projects include the Capitol Visitor Center

which is a key component of the systematic modernization and strengthening of the

integrated security infrastructure program which has been presented to the Committee. In that regard, we received a substantial portion of the funding to construct

the Capitol Visitor Center and are preparing to seek approval for the review and

validation of the existing design and programmatic needs and modify them as necessary. The finalization of construction plans and specifications would follow after

approval is received.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed with the Capitol Police

that established the division of responsibilities, and the processes and procedures

to be followed when developing and implementing security projects. This memorandum continues to be an excellent matrix defining the processes and procedures

important to the close working relationship between the two organizations.

Briefly, the MOU assigns the responsibility for design, procurement, installation

and maintenance of physical security barriers and other structures to the Architect

of the Capitol while the Capitol Police’s Physical Security Division is in charge of

design, procurement, installation of other security systems, including intrusion and

duress alarms, x-ray, scanning and other security systems for facilities. My office

continues to provide infrastructure support for the implementation of these systems.

This has resulted in a strong working relationship between the two organizations.

The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,

1999 also transferred the responsibility for design, installation, and maintenance of

security systems to protect the physical security of the buildings and grounds of the

Library of Congress from the Architect of the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board

to be carried out under the direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the

House of Representatives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. In response to this change an additional MOU that will outline the process, procedures and responsibilities for the improved security programs of the Library of

Congress is in the process of being finalizing by this Office, the Capitol Police and

the Library of Congress. It is anticipate that this MOU will be forwarded to the appropriate committees for approval shortly.

In addition to the planning for the programmatic, personnel and physical security

needs provided for in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, funding was provided in fiscal year 1999 to conduct a comprehensive Master Plan that will present the options for providing the current and

future facility needs of the Capitol Police and the participating law enforcement entities operating within the Capitol Complex. These include a new shared offsite delivery center where all deliveries to the Capitol Complex can be properly screened,

a shared training facility that would support the collective training requirements of

the police, a modern command and communications center that is capable of monitoring and administering the existing and proposed security systems in a centralized

and coordinated manner, as well as other support facilities not currently or adequately provided. The Master Plan is currently being finalized and will be submitted

to the appropriate committees for review and approval as part of the planning ap-
44

proval process to support the development of the proposed new security and police

facilities.

The 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, (Public Law 105–174) provided $20 million to improved perimeter security for Capitol Square, as well as

the streets surrounding the Senate Office Buildings. The Capitol Police Board has

been directed to develop a specific plan for this project. The challenge is to sensitively integrate a sophisticated security program into the historic landscape of the

Capitol Grounds and the fabric of the incomparable complex of buildings that grace

Capitol Hill. The solution has been strongly influenced by the fact that the Capitol

is the ‘‘Peoples’ Building’’ and visitors must perceive it as such with reasonable access being provided. Perimeter fencing and other overly intrusive security measures

have, therefore, been avoided.

To meet this challenge, the Board organized a Task Force made up of key staff

from the Architect’s office, the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Capitol

Police, and nationally recognized architectural and security consultants. The Task

Force reviewed the previous work done by various groups, including the schematic

designs developed in the late 1980s that became known as the ‘‘Whip’s Plan’’, and

the 1995 security evaluation requested by the Board and performed by the U.S. Secret Service and Capitol Police. The Task Force has completed this effort.

The primary elements of the plan include improved security at all entrances to

Capitol Square through the use of a combination of high impact vehicle barriers

that are police activated at the most critical locations, or card activated egress from

parking related areas. These are to be used in conjunction with a continuous string

of security bollards similar to those designed for and installed at the White House.

These bollards would replace the concrete planters and sewer pipes that had been

temporarily put in place in the 1980s. Together with new high impact stone planter

areas consistent with the Frederick Law Olmsted walls and the integration of electronic and other security systems at each entrance, a continuously secure perimeter

would be created largely internal to the original Olmsted walls which, in many

areas, are too low to meet security height requirements and are not of reinforced

construction.

At each of the Capitol Square access points, the incorporation of modern electronic

and other security systems would be integrated with new barrier structures in the

form of planters mentioned above and the replacement of the existing concrete

sewer pipes and planters with security bollards of a design consistent with that

being deployed at other government properties. The end result of the proposed

changes would be significant improvements to both the security needs and appearance of Capitol Square.

Subsequent to the submittal of this comprehensive plan for improved perimeter

security for Capitol Square, approval was received by the Senate Committee on

Rules and Administration, and is anticipated by the Committee on House Administration.

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration also specifically approved the

Board’s plan to improve the physical security elements protecting the Senate

grounds and office buildings. Although this matter relates solely to the Senate,

funding is included under our ‘‘Perimeter Security’’ project in the ‘‘Capitol Grounds’’

appropriation for this purpose. To resolve the security concerns, the Board recommended that landscape elements and bollards similar to those recommended for

Capitol Square be used to replace the existing ‘‘Jersey’’ barriers, concrete planters

and pipe sections. This solution maintains the necessary levels of security while

softening the visual impact of these measures. The detailed construction plans and

specifications are currently being completed and construction is scheduled to begin

this summer.

The Capitol Police Board approved five security related projects that are included

in the Architect of the Capitol’s request for fiscal year 2000. Infrastructure for Security Installations ($500,000), which as reduced by $250,000 from the fiscal year 1999

level, provides the infrastructure accommodations to support the continued installation by the Capitol Police of door controls, alarms, cameras and other security devices throughout the Capitol Complex. Security Project Support ($550,000) will provide this Office with technical staffing resources to coordinate and oversee the design and construction of capital improvements to be implemented by this Office that

were funded in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental and Appropriations Act, 1999. Book Conveyor System Security (Internal LOC Collections)

($400,000) will provide for access control of the Library of Congress book conveyor

system. Collections Security, LOC ($1,000,000) will provide for the continued installation of card readers and other security sensors and devices to protect the Library’s

collections. Secure Attic and Basement Areas, SOB ($100,000) will provide for the

construction of physical barriers in various storage areas of the Senate.
45

APPENDIX C

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AOC HUMAN RESOURCES ACT OF 1995 ACHIEVEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

The Congress passed the AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 in the Fiscal Year

1995 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Public Law 103–283, approved July 22,

1994. The law required that the AOC develop a human resources management program consistent with modern practices common to Federal and private sector programs.

CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM FOCUS

Since April of 1997, the Human Resources Management Division (HRMD), under

a new Director, has made the following areas a priority: Customer service delivery;

program/policy development; service delivery systems re-engineering; personnel action and operational processing simplification.

In order to accomplish these priorities as well as the daily human resource operational requirements, HRMD has, as a team, formed relationships across branches

and functions to address these new challenges. The following information outlines

HRMD’s progress so far and identifies new directions for the coming year.

Program Guidance Completed

The following program guidance was developed, distributed, and briefings provided to all Agency Supervisors:

Training Program.—The training program was significantly revitalized and expanded to meet management and employee training needs. Specifically, we have:

—Administered a wide range of training courses for AOC employees at all organizational levels and of varied disciplines (copy attached).

—Published a new training guidance handbook which has been provided to managers, supervisors and foremen during scheduled informational meetings. The

handbook addresses the overall process for handling training requests and provides the following information: a detailed listing of training videos that are

available for check-out or for viewing in the HRMD learning resources center

by AOC staff; guidance on staff cross-training and job and non-job related training; instructions for completing on-site as well as off-site training requests; sample curricula and on-the-job training suggestions for a wide variety of trade occupations; and a copy of the General Services Administration’s Facilities Management Training Center Catalogue.

—Implemented an automated training system to capture all training activity and

funds allocation.

Hazard Pay/Environmental Differential—Guidance has been developed and provided for supervisors to use in requesting hazardous duty pay for appropriate work

situations. The guidance provides for a number of steps to be taken by the supervisor prior to instructing employees to work in conditions that may be considered

as hazardous duty. The guidelines provide for a health and safety review of the proposed working conditions, the applicable safety equipment, and other health/safety

considerations. Once this review is completed, the supervisor will follow the procedures outlined to request from HRMD the authority to grant hazardous duty pay

to employees involved in that specific work assignment.

Temporary Limited Duty Assignments.—Guidance was developed and provided for

use by supervisors when considering requests from employees for limited duty assignments, on a short-term basis, while recovering from a non-work related injury

or illness. This information identifies the initial steps employees must follow and

the documentation necessary to clearly substantiate a medical limitation. With specific medical documentation, the supervisor can make a determination whether or

not a limited duty assignment is possible based on the employee’s medical limitations and mission needs.

Reissuance of Policy on the Administrative Work Week.—Based on numerous questions about what constitutes the work week and inconsistent application of policies

in different segments of the agency, we reissued the AOC policy and standardized

procedures to all employees.

Programs and Policies That Are Completed And Ready For Union Negotiations

HRMD has completed the following program and policy guidance, which is awaiting negotiations with the Union. AFSCME Local 626 was elected by AOC employees

earlier this year, representing laborer and custodial employees. As negotiations are

completed for each policy, we will implement each of these initiatives. Our work on
46

Program and Policy development is carried out in coordination and collaboration

with Chief Employment Counsel and Chief Labor Relations Counsel. This ensures

compliance with applicable laws and regulations including provisions of the Human

Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act.

Architect’s Mobility Program (AMP).—With the assistance of a workgroup, we

have revised the program guidelines. The program is designed to provide career

growth opportunities for employees in lower-graded, career-limiting positions. Anticipate beginning the program with 8 to 12 vacancies initially. This is to ensure

that we are able to provide the necessary one-on-one assistance to the selecting official and the selected employee to develop a tailored training development plan. Once

negotiations are complete we will provide informational sessions for employees and

supervisors with detailed information about the Program, and operating procedures.

Specific assistance will be given to employees on the application process, on completing the necessary forms, etc.

Temporary Promotion Policy.—Completed the policy and procedures for supervisors to follow in proposing temporary promotions for employees. The policy provides for a uniform way of proposing, documenting, competing when necessary, and

approving temporary promotions for AOC staff. Through this policy, Agency supervisors will be able to make a time-limited change of an employee’s assignment, with

corresponding time-limited increase in pay.

Work Detail Policy.—Completed the policy and procedures for supervisors to follow

in proposing details (temporary work assignments) for their employees. The policy

provides for a uniform way of proposing, documenting and approving details for

AOC staff. Through this policy Agency supervisors will be able to temporarily assign

an employee to a different position or set of duties, without a change in pay. The

employee that is temporarily assigned to a different position or duties continues to

officially occupy his/her position of record.

Classification Appeals Policy.—Completed development of a classification appeal

process for employees to use when the classification of their position (job title, series

and/or grade) is in question. The process ensures that a thorough review and analysis of the position is completed; a specific report of findings is provided; and that

HR staff meet to discuss the findings with the employee and the supervisor. The

policy also provides for a third party (a neutral reviewer) to conduct the review in

cases where this may be more appropriate.

ADDITIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Delegations of Authority.—In June 1997, the Human Resources office was granted

full delegated authority to carry out the wide range of personnel actions necessary

to support and carry out the mission of the Agency.

Informational Briefings.—The Human Resource staff has been conducting informational briefings for groups of supervisors and managers in each jurisdiction. The

briefings cover temporary limited duty assignments, hazardous duty pay/environmental differential, updates to the disciplinary process, the Architect’s Mobility Program, the recently developed Training Handbook and other Human Resource program areas. The briefings are one method HRMD is using to develop an ongoing,

cyclical dialogue with Agency supervisors to assure they understand the policies of

the Agency and our intent to create standardized policies and procedures across all

of our jurisdictions.

Earlyout and Buyout Program for the Senate Restaurants.—Based on Congressional authorization, developed program guidance, operating procedures, informational materials and facilitated counseling sessions to help employees decide if they

were interested in applying for a buyout and/or earlyout during November/December

1997. The overall process, which required about three months of staff effort, resulted in 23 employees accepting the separation incentive. Through a second buyout

program, in fiscal year 1998, an additional 17 employees accepted a buyout. These

efforts have resulted in an estimated saving of $1 million per year for the Senate

Restaurants.

In developing the guidance and procedures to administer this authority, we

benchmarked similar activities at other agencies and completed a successful programmatic review conducted by General Accounting Office (GAO) staff. Our experience with this authority is that it is an effective tool that holds much promise as

a component for re-engineering other areas of the Agency.

Enhancing Supervisory Skills Workshop.—With the assistance of a training consultant, we developed and administered this workshop for all AOC supervisors. The

mandatory three-day training session addressed numerous topics with a focus on refreshing and enhancing supervisory skills. This workshop was the first of what will

be a series of training opportunities aimed at improving the management and super-
47

visory skills of AOC executives, managers, supervisors, foremen and assistant foremen. Major components of this workshop included segments to: enhance communications with employees; provide basic skills and the tools to effectively and promptly

address conduct and discipline issues; address methods for providing positive reinforcement to staff; and, allowed an open discussion and review of pressing problems/

issues.

Streamlining the Discipline Process.—In an effort to improve the timely and fair

handling of disciplinary cases, we examined AOC’s current process and procedure

to identify areas where processing time for these actions could be reduced, without

changing the existing policy. A number of areas were identified where supervisors,

HRMD, and the Hearing Officers could be more time efficient. To help reduce the

time it takes to resolve a disciplinary case, we developed processing time standards.

A decision was also made to obtain the services of independent contractors, skilled

in handling hearings, to assume the duties that have been carried out by AOC managers. In doing this, we have added an additional degree of independent objectivity

and consistency to the review of cases in addition to improving overall timeliness

of handling a disciplinary action.

Contract Administration Training Initiative.—In collaboration with the Procurement Division, HRMD led an initiative to promote the training of contract project

officers. A comprehensive program plan and schedule was developed to facilitate a

contract project officer and a contract administration course. The first phase of this

training program is underway. This initiative will enable the agency to more efficiently and professionally handle the administration of contracts for services that

will be performed for AOC.

Position Management Review.—In coordination with the Budget Office, HRMD implemented an Agency-wide process that ensures completion of a budget analysis and

a position management review prior to a position being approved for recruitment.

The position management review, completed by this office, focuses on: the need for

the position; duplication of effort or overlapping of functions; the appropriate supervisory span of control; and staffing alternatives to ensure the position is filled at

the lowest possible grade (salary) level.

Position Classification Studies.—Efforts in this area have resulted in:

—Completion of a number of position classification review studies including: raising the career ladder to the GS–13 level for Architect positions in the Architectural Division; developing GS–13 program manager positions in Engineering;

developing GS–13 level positions in the Information Management Division.

—Completion of a preliminary review of a random sample of Laborer positions in

the House, Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. The review was completed in

response to employee complaints that their positions should be paid at a higher

level. We found that the majority of the positions were either properly graded

or were over graded. A broader study will be necessary to better address this

issue.

A review of all the positions in the Botanic Gardens is currently underway to determine the proper titles, series and grades of these positions.

Organizational Studies.—An organizational management review was completed

for the Superintendent of the Capitol, resulting in a reorganization with consolidation of a number of shops. An organizational realignment, to consolidate the grounds

staffs at the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress under the AOC Landscape

Architect, was also completed. Currently, we are working with the Superintendent

of the Senate Office Buildings, the Director of Engineering, and the Immediate Office of the Architect on a number of organizational issues.

These efforts are part of our Strategic Planning and Organization Management

efforts to develop sound, efficient, cost-effective staffing patterns for the Agency.

This work will result in streamlined organizations with appropriate supervisor-toemployee staffing ratios. We also assess options that will facilitate the identification

and development of centralized operations, and opportunities for multi-tasked job

assignments and upward mobility positions.

AOC Electronic Job Announcements.—A procedure to ‘‘post’’ all AOC job vacancies

on the Office of Personnel Management Job Information Home Page

(www.usajobs.opm.gov) was developed and implemented. AOC vacancies can now be

found by any interested applicant ‘‘surfing’’ the net. In addition, to foster increased

opportunities for all AOC staff, we implemented a policy of advertising jobs Agencywide. This replaced the existing practice of advertising jobs primarily at the jurisdiction level. This will not only provide more opportunities for current AOC staff, but

ensures consideration of a broader pool of candidates. Should we anticipate that

there would not be a broad cross section of available internal candidates, the vacancies would be advertised to all sources (both within the AOC and to outside sources).
48

Our goal is to ensure that vacancies are filled using a fair and open competitive procedure.

Human Resources Newsletter.—Developed and have been publishing a monthly

Human Resources Newsletter, Employee Matters as part of the AOC Shoptalk. The

newsletter provides AOC employees with current Human Resource information, program initiatives, upcoming events, training information, etc.

Human Resources Web HomePage—A new resource for AOC employees who have

access to the AOC intranet has been developed. Employees can now find out about

Human Resources-related information and policies on-line. Since this is just the beginning of our venture into the website design, we will continue to modify and enhance the HomePage based on feedback. Currently, the HomePage contains: Employee-wide notices issued by HRMD; A complete HR staff roster with contact numbers and service areas; The Uniform Policy and related documents; Issues of Employee Matters; Links to other sites such as TSP, Social Security and Federal Job

Opportunities including AOC jobs A feedback link to E-Mail a message to HRMDLink.

In the near future, the site will be expanded to include: Every current AOC

human resources policy; Mission-related information about HRMD and its branches,

including each of the services and programs we provide.

HUMAN RESOURCES INITIATIVES UNDERWAY

This is a brief summary of additional HRMD initiatives underway:

CSRS to FERS Conversion.—AOC had over 900 employees who are eligible to convert from CSRS to the FERS Retirement System during the open season that continues through December 31, 1998. We had a comprehensive strategy in place to inform eligible employees of the process, considerations, financial implications, etc.

HRMD provided one-on-one counseling and retirement comparisons to any interested employee who considered making the change. In addition, 79 employees participated in either FERS Transfer briefings and/or individual retirement transfer

counseling sessions provided by HRMD.

Awards Program.—An awards policy/program to establish a comprehensive incentives and recognition program, including provisions to pilot monetary and time off

awards is being developed. Providing an incentive system, that recognizes performance, productivity and exceptional employee contributions toward fulfilling our mission, will serve to reinforce service excellence, professionalism, creativity, and teamwork AOC-wide.

Performance Evaluation System (PES).—A plan has been developed to review and

make necessary program and policy changes to revamp the AOC PES. Focus groups

comprised of supervisors, foremen, employees and managers will be conducted to assist us in the initial phase of the review. A workgroup of AOC staff will be used

to help develop proposals for necessary changes to revamp the system.

Human Resources Process/Systems Re-engineering.—In the same fashion that the

discipline process was streamlined to reduce processing time, we are systematically

reviewing and revamping other HR processes and procedures so they are more responsive to management and employee needs. Even though this requires us to make

a large investment of time, addressing these initiatives and the business of modernizing AOC’s Human Resources programs are being approached with a great degree

of enthusiasm by the HRMD staff. Our current focus is the re-engineering of the

operating processes and procedures followed by the Employment and Services

Branch. Staff workgroups will systematically analyze, modernize, simplify and implement new ways of doing business in a number of areas including: recruitment,

pay and benefits processing, retirement counseling and program administration,

health and life benefits administration, etc.

Labor Management Relations and Negotiations.—With the election of a union to

represent approximately one-third of the Agency’s workforce, HRMD now has additional program responsibilities to carry out in collaboration with the Labor Relations

Attorney. HRMD is working with a wide variety and a significant number of dayto-day union issues as well as serving on the management negotiation team. They

regularly participate in meetings with union officials to address specific issues or

concerns and to provide information. The staff will be devoting a considerable

amount of time to carry out negotiations with the union on a labor-management

contract, as well as on specific policy issues.

Forging New Business Relationships.—HRMD has been working with several organizations across the campus: The Capitol Police to establish joint efforts to successfully and safely deal with potential workplace issues; The Attending Physician’s

Office and the Occupational Health and Safety staff to develop better program linkages with regard to workers compensation, training and other program areas; and
49

Participating in initial discussions with the Sergeant at Arms and the Chief Administrative Officer on potential areas for mutual cooperation.

The staff is actively participating on several executive agency forums: a member

of the Small and Independent Federal Agencies Personnel Group; a member of the

Office of Personnel Management’s Human Resource Accountability Workgroup; participate in the Classification and Compensation Society forums; and are actively involved in the Federal Safety and Health Council.

UPCOMING HUMAN RESOURCES INITIATIVES

This is a brief summary of additional HRMD initiatives on the horizon:

Leave Administration.—Guidance and instructions being used by the various jurisdictions are being collected in an effort to assess how leave is administered across

the AOC. We want to look at options for developing more standard policies and procedures for handling the various aspects of leave administration including: Process

for requesting and approving leave (annual, sick, without pay, etc.); Process for annotating and documenting tardiness; Process for annotating, documenting and initiating action to address AWOL situations.

Records Management—HRMD is reviewing the information AOC organizations

currently maintain about the employment and conduct of individual employees with

the goal of developing guidelines to standardize these practices. Individual supervisors and managers may find it convenient to maintain unofficial personnel records

containing information about their employees for purposes of initiating personnel actions, tracking leave usage, and recommending discipline. The information maintained might duplicate some of that in the employee’s Official Personnel Folder, but

may include copies of additional material such as employee’s counseling, incident reports, and supervisory notes. In order to provide consistency in the content and

manner in which employee information is kept, HRMD will develop guidelines to

govern what documentation may and may not be maintained, as well as general information on the employee’s right to review it.

Update and Revamp the AOC Conduct and Discipline Policy.—The AOC operating

process and procedures for handling conduct and discipline matters will be reviewed

and updated. The existing process is rather cumbersome and can be very time intensive. The necessary procedural steps in administering the disciplinary process will

be streamlined.

A Comprehensive Wage and Pay Administration and Hours of Duty Policy.—

HRMD will look into developing a more uniform, comprehensive, way of addressing

wage and pay matters to cover holiday pay, overtime, tours of duty, etc. This effort

will standardize pay administration and work scheduling across the Agency and provide clear operating guidelines for AOC supervisors to follow.

Workers’ Compensation Program.—HRMD has initiated a concerted effort to develop a comprehensive program to address the high workers’ compensation costs

being incurred by the Agency. Our goal is to address injuries, case management,

and work with the Department of Labor on a very proactive basis. We will 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 return to work program and to aggressively pursue

cases of potential fraudulent claims.

Employee Safety and Protection.—In collaboration with the AOC Health and Safety Office, HRMD will continue to address employee safety and protection in the

workplace. We have already drafted and implemented (with union concurrence) an

employee uniform policy to cover employees currently authorized to use them. We

need to address other employee personal protection issues such as protective clothing, eye protection, safety shoes, etc., to further support AOC health, safety, and

training initiatives.

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.
50

Human Resources Process/Systems Re-engineering.—The staff will continue to reengineer, streamline and revamp our operating processes and procedures with the

goals of reducing processing time and providing more responsive customer services.

Following the model we used in the conduct and discipline process (previously addressed in this report), we will complete a process to streamline and re-engineer operating processes and procedures in the Employment and Services Branch and then

replicate the model in the Classification and Pay Administration Branch, the Management and Employee Relations Branch, and the Employee Development and Communications Branch.

Our bottom line is to be more responsive in meeting the needs of our AOC customers, and provide timely, cost-effective HR services. We envision the Human Resources as a proactive partner and resource in advancing the AOC mission of being

an innovative and efficient team dedicated to service excellence and to preserving,

maintaining and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.

APPENDIX D

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL INITIATIVES REGARDING THE CONGRESSIONAL

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

Enacted in 1996, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the CAA) affords

all AOC employees a means by which to present allegations regarding employment

practices in an independent office in the legislative branch.

EMPLOYMENT COMPLAINT PROCESS

An employee who wishes to allege violations of the CAA may request counseling

and mediation from the Office of Compliance. Individuals who wish to file such requests need not put in writing, or prove, any allegations during formal counseling,

mediation or before entering the formal litigation process. At mediations the Agency

may be asked to respond to any employment-related matters, including discrimination, wage and hour and family leave issues, or other workplace issues. The CAA

and the Office of Compliance procedural rules require that all mediation and formal

hearing proceedings remain strictly confidential and requires parties to sign agreements to that effect.

If mediation does not satisfy an individual, he or she, or a designated representative, may initiate the litigation process by filing a formal complaint in the Office

of Compliance or a civil action in Federal Court. (The Office of Compliance has ordered that Formal Complaint cases be kept strictly confidential.)

CASE STATISTICS

The Office of Compliance (OC) official figures are not yet available for Calendar

Year 1998. Based on the OC reports for 1997, the first full year that the law was

in effect, individuals filed 77 requests for counseling naming the AOC as the employing office. In Calendar Year 1996, the number of requests for counseling naming

the AOC as the employing office was 34. (The filing of such requests is a pre-requisite to filing a Request for Mediation upon which the OC first informs the AOC

of the existence of a complaint from an employee.)

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROVISIONS

Section 215 of the CAA directs the Office of Compliance General Counsel, periodically and on request, to inspect any area or activity within the jurisdiction of employing offices, including all of the buildings within the Agency’s jurisdiction with

respect to compliance with occupational safety and health standards. (As of January

1998, the Library of Congress is also separately covered by the these provisions.)

The OC General Counsel conducts inspections of all such locations at least once

every Congress, but also on the request of an employee or an employing office.

Beginning in 1997 and ending in 1998, the OC General Counsel conducted periodic inspections of all AOC locations. These inspections began in July 1997 and extended through June 1998. Also, the OC General Counsel conducted about 30 inspections of AOC facilities, based on a request by union officials or AOC employees.

The Agency has been fully cooperative in this inspection process and has responded

to the issues raised. The OC General Counsel issued citations on two occasions: on

March 25, 1998, six (6) citations issued covering the storage of flammable substances throughout Capitol complex and two (2) concerning the trash sorting/recy-
51

1Tentative agreements have been reached on these items. Memoranda of Understanding negotiated between the AOC and AFSCME will become effective subject to ratification by AFSCME

and final approval by the Architect.

cling activities in the House Office Buildings. The Agency did not contest these citations and the conditions were immediately abated.

In August 1998 the OC General Counsel raised concerns about the possible presence of legionella bacteria in certain locations within the West Cooling Tower of the

Capitol Power Plant. AOC officials acted swiftly to ensure that employees at the

plant were not adversely affected and that the conditions in the tower are regularly

monitored. With the assistance of national experts in cooling tower operations and

of the Attending Physician regarding employee health issues, AOC devised a plan

that assured that no outbreak would occur. [Currently, the West Cooling Tower,

during its scheduled shutdown for cleaning and maintenance, is also undergoing certain recommended structural changes to avoid any similar concerns in the future.]

Pursuant to a request for inspection filed in April 1998 by an AOC employee collective bargaining agent, the Office of Compliance has conducted inspections to ensure the availability of emergency fire exits throughout the day and night in all of

the buildings in the Capitol Complex. The Agency has accelerated its efforts to modify all the doors to address this concern.

APPENDIX E

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL INITIATIVES IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, FISCAL

YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

Provisions under the Congressional Accountability Act, Public Law 104–1, gave

AOC employees the right to join collective bargaining units. Since the Accountability

Act’s passage, three different groups of AOC employees have exercised this right.

The following discussion describes labor—management relations activities that have

taken place over the past two years.

FORMATION OF UNIONS

In August, 1997, the first bargaining unit at the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)

was established. Approximately 600 laborers, custodians and other occupations were

organized by AFSCME Council 26. Local 626 was established as the bargaining

agent for these employees.

In November, 1998, AFSCME Council 26, Local 626 was certified as the exclusive

representative of a production and maintenance unit at the United States Botanic

Garden.

On January 13, 1999, Plumbers Local Union No. 5, United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices et al. was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, by the

Office of Compliance, for a unit of plumbers employed by the AOC’s Construction

Management Division.

UNION NEGOTIATIONS

The AOC and AFSCME Local 626 have completed negotiations on the following

subjects: Uniforms for Senate Office Buildings and Capitol Building employees;

Time Clocks for Capitol building employees; Official time and the Number of Designated Union Officials * 1; Dues deduction; Architect’s Mobility Program * 1 and

Ground Rules for Master Contract Negotiations.

LABOR—RELATIONS MEETINGS

At least 15 labor-management meetings have been held during the past year to

discuss various issues, including staffing, time and attendance, training opportunities, change in work assignments, discipline, health and safety.

Two receptions were hosted by the Architect for Local 626 elected officers, stewards and representatives in 1998.

ALLEGATIONS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Eight unfair labor practice charges were filed by AFSCME Local 626 during fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 to date. Four were withdrawn, one was dismissed, settlement

discussions are continuing on two other cases, and a most recently-filed charge is

under investigation by the Office of Compliance.
52

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS

Presently, there is no collective bargaining agreement covering any AOC employees. Bargaining for a Master Agreement with AFSCME, for both of the units that

it represents, will not commence until all negotiability issues are resolved, either

formally or informally.

Proposals and counter-proposals will be exchanged within 15 days following a

final determination or resolution of the negotiability issues.

APPENDIX F

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL REENGINEERING PLAN INCLUDING BUYOUT AND

EARLYOUT PROGRAMS, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

The AOC’s goal is ‘‘To be an innovative and efficient team dedicated to service

excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.’’ As such, the AOC embarked on a strategic goal of rebuilding

the Agency into a flexible, responsive, and quality oriented instrument of the Congress through reengineering. The AOC requested buyout and early out authority to

increase management’s flexibility for reengineering the Agency. This authority was

provided in Sec. 308 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law

105–275, dated October 21, 1998.

REENGINEERING PROGRAM

The AOC’s reengineering program is designed as a cross-jurisdictional, multi-dimensional effort. Through this program the AOC will: reshape its business approach

through reengineering and increased use of automation; create cost effective programs and services using a multi-skilled workforce; consolidate programs and services with the deployment of staff across campus; and provide for timely succession

planning.

During fiscal year 1998, the general plan was presented to the Committee on

Rules and Administration of the Senate and the Committee on House Oversight of

the House of Representatives, as well as both Legislative Branch Subcommittees for

Appropriations. The proposed Implementation Plan to reshape the Agency, as presented, will: Develop a mix of staff skills to meet mission needs; Cross-train current

staff to be multi-skilled; Align and consolidate functional activities and programs to

build efficiency and minimize redundant services.

The use of buyout/earlyout authority was requested to stimulate turnover and

NOT downsizing, thus providing a managed restructuring process. The Agency requested a three year process so as to manage the rate of turnover to ensure that

the Agency could maintain customer service levels and fill critical needs.

Based on work completed by the superintendents and other senior staff, the Agency identified the occupations and program areas for the first year of reengineering

which: Have minimal interaction with congressional operations; have no security

concerns; have easily defined tasks and duties; and have been evaluated against potential impact on the integrity of structural, electrical and mechanical systems.

AUTHORITY FOR BUYOUTS/EARLYOUTS

Section 308 of Public Law 105–275 authorizes The Architect of the Capitol to administer a three year voluntary separation incentive (buyout) program and voluntary early retirement (earlyout) program within the Agency. This authority does

not include employees of the U.S. Senate Restaurants. The justification for this program is to facilitate reengineering and reinvesting in the Agency to meet both mission requirements and fiduciary responsibility. Prior to each annual buyout/earlyout

program, the Architect must submit the Agency Reengineering Plan to the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and the Committee on House

Oversight of the House of Representatives for approval. The plan shall include the

positions and functions to be reduced or eliminated, identified by organizational

unit, occupational category, and pay or grade level; the number and amounts of voluntary separation incentive payments to be offered; and a description of how the

Agency will operate without the eliminated positions and functions.

APPROACH

In preparation for implementing a reengineering effort which would utilize buyout

authority to facilitate turnover, the AOC has taken the following steps: Bench-
53

marked with technical experts (Building Owners Management Assoc., Office of Personnel Management, facility management experts such as GSA, Coca Cola, and several universities, GAO, etc.); Consulted with Arthur Andersen Consulting, Inc.; Reaffirmed operational selection criteria with Superintendents; Performed risk assessment for operational areas—task activity based; Determined the commercial availability of services and support; Planned next steps, including required organizational and operational support.

To achieve the desired reengineering goal over the next three years, AOC’s Year

1 approach for buyout and early retirement provisions ensures that the Agency,

with in-house staff, will continue to perform duties that have direct impact on the

integrity of structural, mechanical, and electrical facilities; and continue to perform

critical services as defined by Members of Congress. This program is designed to assure that all AOC services are continued without interruption or diminution over

the period.

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

The maximum payout for a buyout will be $25,000. The cost of the buyouts will

be paid from the salary savings realized through the employees’ departure from the

AOC payroll.

The AOC will reinvest savings realized through this program into Agency operations and projects as well as in procuring services through outside vendors as appropriate.

The Agency will reengineer positions that are vacated through this effort to provide for a complement of multi-skilled staff; positions that are restructured by filling

at lower grade levels; and positions that will be used for the Architect’s Mobility

Program.

Program and work process consolidation will be a part of this effort to ensure that

economies and better efficiencies are realized.

Union negotiations will need to be completed prior to implementation of the plan

as it affects bargaining unit employees. The outcome of negotiations may affect the

projections made in the plan.

The proposed announcement to employees, of the buyout opportunity, must be

made as soon as possible to realize the maximum possible savings.

DETERMINATION OF OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS

The Superintendents of each jurisdiction, along with other senior staff, completed

organizational reviews that resulted in the identification of occupational groups that

provide the best opportunities for AOC-wide reengineering.

JURISDICTION CATEGORIES FOR BUYOUT/EARLYOUT PROGRAM

Cross-jurisdictional tasks were analyzed for their potential to incorporate best

business practices and to provide more cost effective programs and services. In addition, the Agency focused on the occupational groups that provided opportunities for: —Multi-skilled Staff.—Identified opportunities within the occupational groups to

introduce a multi-skilled workforce. Sample position descriptions, vacancy announcements, and training be used in staffing a multi-skilled workforce have

been developed and are ready for implementation. —Position Restructuring.—Identified potential cost savings by restructuring the

work assignments of journeyman-level positions to ensure that work which

could more appropriately be performed by lower-graded staff is not a part of the

day-to-day assignments for journeyman-level staff. —Architect’s Mobility Program.—Developed a program to provide opportunities for

career limiting positions. The Program, currently being negotiated with the

union, will be used to retool positions identified within the jurisdictions. In addition, it will also serve as a tool for Agency succession planning in future years.

The Reengineering Plan, using buyouts and earlyouts, will result in savings from

eliminated positions and also provides additional savings and flexibilities through

realigning and restructuring the Agency’s organizations and its workforce.

—Projected Reengineered Positions.—Positions were identified for restructuring as

multi-skilled jobs. Positions are projected for use in the Architect’s Mobility Program, and positions will be retooled and reclassified (positions restructured to

carry out work at a lower grade level). The projected savings will be reinvested

for Agency operational support needs.

—Program Consolidation—Work Process Consolidation is also a part of these reengineering efforts. Examples of efforts in this area include: consolidation of the

U.S. Capitol House HVAC shop and the U.S. Capitol Senate HVAC shop, which

reduced the number of supervisors through attrition; alignment of preventive
54

maintenance functions with evening staffing requirements in the House and

Senate; and consolidation of all landscaping and ground maintenance functions

for the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress under the Agency’s Landscape Architect. —Succession Planning.—The review of vacated positions to ensure that AOC’s future workforce embodies the knowledge and talents to carry on the reengineering goals identified in the plan.

BUYOUT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Year 1 Buyout/Earlyout Occupational Groups/Program Areas

Year 1 buyouts/earlyouts opportunities apply to positions that have been identified in individual jurisdictional plans. Due to mission/program needs as specified by

the Superintendents in the organizational analysis activity, some jurisdictions may

not be offering buyouts in some of the occupations/program areas identified in the

Year 1 Reengineering Plan. Buyouts/earlyouts in subsequent years will be for different occupational groups/program areas.

Communications

In order to effectively communicate buyout/earlyout information to AOC employees, the AOC will use a variety of written informational tools and in-person communications. Written communication tools will be used to convey the buyout/earlyout

material (number and types of positions included in Year 1 plan, the application

process, the timeframe for application and separation, etc.) Employees will have access to the information via memoranda, the employee newsletter, and the AOC

intranet. Supervisors will also be provided guidance material to assist in information dissemination.

A number of general employee briefings are planned to personally explain the application and selection process, the Federal retirement programs, leave and employee benefits considerations, etc. Individual retirement and separation counseling

sessions will be provided by a retirement counselor to include retirement and benefits calculations and information.

An informational hot-line will be used to provide general overview information

and will provide the opportunity for employees to speak with a human resources advisor regarding a specific topic or question.

Labor Management Considerations

Buyout and earlyout options will be offered to some members of the AOC bargaining unit. The Agency will submit the proposed AOC Reengineering Plan to the

union to satisfy legally required union negotiations as to impact and implementation. The Agency’s interest is to implement and effect the buyout/earlyout process,

so as to allow employees to separate in the second quarter of the fiscal year, in order

to realize the maximum possible savings and pay for the buyouts. While the Agency

anticipates that the union shares a common interest in making buyouts/earlyouts

available to bargaining unit employees, the timing and implementation of the process, for bargaining unit employees, will be contingent on completion of any required

union negotiations. The outcome of negotiations may affect the projections included

in this plan as to bargaining unit positions.

Process Information

Eligibility.—Employees who agree to separate from the Agency through regular

retirement, early retirement, or resignation are eligible to apply for a buyout if: they

are a permanent AOC employee; they have continuously worked for the Federal government for the past 12 months; and their current job classification and title is the

same as the type of job category identified for the Year 1 buyout/earlyout program.

Employees are not eligible to apply for a buyout if: they are a reemployed annuitant;

they are a temporary employee (appointment pay plan designated as GG, or Davis

Bacon (DB); they have previously received a buyout; they are or would be eligible

for disability retirement; or they are employees of the U.S. Senate Restaurants.

Application Package. Buyout/Earlyout Applications will be submitted to the

Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) identifying the proposed type of

separation, separation date, and appropriate employee information. The application

will be included in the AOC Buyout/Earlyout Application Package.

Verification. HRMD will verify that the applicant: (1) is eligible for a buyout, (2)

is ineligible for disability retirement, (3) is eligible for the type of separation indicated on the proposed separation date (regular retirement, earlyout, or resignation

after at least 12 months of continuous service, (4) has been counseled by a Human

Resources Advisor, (5) and any other provision negotiated with the union representing the bargaining unit to which the employee belongs.
55

Selection. Since more applications for buyouts may be received for some of the occupations than the number of buyouts available, the Agency will use fair and objective criteria for deciding which applications will be approved. In this circumstance,

the AOC will use employees’ total length of Federal service as selection the criterion. Should a tie result in length of Federal service, AOC length of service will

be used to break the tie.

Payment. The amount of the buyout will be $25,000 or the amount of severance

pay due on the date of separation, whichever is less. Payment is made in a lump

sum, after deductions for Federal, state and local, and Medicare/FICA taxes, after

the employee leaves the Agency. Buyout payments are also subject to garnishment

for alimony, child support, or other debts. In addition, payment will be made to the

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in the amount of 15 percent of the

final basic pay of each employee who is paid a buyout (as identified in Public Law

105–275).

Separation. Employees selected for a buyout must separate through regular retirement, early retirement, or resignation during the buyout window.

Delayed Separation. Superintendents of each jurisdiction may request the approval of the Architect to retain an employee, who has been selected to receive a

buyout, until a specific separation date later than the separation date identified in

the buyout window (but no later than June 30, 1999). The written request to the

Director, Human Resources must indicate the way in which these employees’ services are critical to the performance of the Agency’s mission, certify that without the

employees’ services, the organization could not perform critical duties that have direct impact on the integrity of structural, mechanical, and electrical facilities; and/

or could not perform critical services for the Congress.

Restriction on Reemployment. Employees who accept a buyout may not be reemployed by the Federal government for a period a five years, including employment

under a personal services contract. If reemployed within five years, employees must

repay the entire buyout payment to the AOC. (Only under extreme circumstances

may this provision be waived.)

Report Generation

HRMD will provide each jurisdiction appropriate information to accurately track

progress towards stated jurisdiction plans so that senior leadership is apprised of

program progress.

ANNUAL REPORT

Following each buyout/earlyout, the AOC will compile an annual report to compare the actual results with the planned results. The Agency will forward the report

to the House of Representatives Committees on House Oversight and Appropriations

and the Senate Committees on Rules and Administration and Appropriations.

APPENDIX G

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STATUS OF SELECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS,

FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

Dome Rehabilitation

The 130-year-old Capitol dome is undergoing a rehabilitation to ensure its structural integrity as well as its protection and preservation into the next century. Construction phasing was determined early in 1998; several studies and pilot projects

and an interim master plan associated with the first phase were also completed,

paving the way for the preparation of construction documents and the issuance of

an Invitation for Bid. The phase one construction contract was awarded to The

Aulson Company of Methuen, Massachusetts, on January 11, 1999, and the work

will proceed while the staff and consulting team continues with additional studies

and the production of design documents in preparation for phase two of the construction that is anticipated to be awarded mid-year 2000. The entire project is

scheduled to be completed in the second quarter of calendar 2003.

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 passersby. 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
56

the base renovation of the structure (including the interior landscapes) and installation of water treatment, security and environmental control systems. During 1999,

the Architect may choose to award additional projects that are included in the contract as options if additional funds become available. The work is to be completed

no later than September 5, 2000. Immediately thereafter, the staff of the U.S. Botanic Garden will install the plant exhibits in each house of the Conservatory.

Rayburn House Office Building Sprinkler Protection and Telecommunication Improvements

This project is intended to provide a sprinkler fire protection system for those

areas of the building not presently covered (to supplement the existing fire protection system), a new telecommunication cable tray system to facilitate the installation of new telecommunications cabling systems throughout the building, and replacement of one emergency generator to support a new fire pump and other critical

equipment in the Rayburn House Office Building. The Architect of the Capitol received 100 percent contract document drawings and specifications on January 27,

1999. The 100 percent Cost Estimate was received on January 29, 1999. Within the

next two weeks, this office will review, make comments and send the comments to

the consultant, James Posey Associates. The final submission is expected to be delivered to AOC by the end of February 1999. The project should be bid this spring and

awarded this summer. It is anticipated that construction will take about three

years.

Chiller Replacement in the East Refrigeration Plant, Capitol Power Plant

The existing chillers in the East Refrigeration Plant are over forty years old and

utilize CFC-based refrigerants which are no longer manufactured while the replacement chillers will be considerably more efficient and will utilize an environmentally

friendly refrigerant. A Commerce Business Daily announcement seeking consulting

firms interested in performing the design for this project was issued last summer

with proposals received from numerous highly qualified firms in the fall. Interviews

for the final selection of a consultant should occur in February 1999 with award of

a contract to follow. Upon award of the contract, design will proceed immediately

with a study to confirm the exact configuration of the chiller replacement and development of a pre-purchase bid package for the chillers and other large equipment.

This pre-purchase bid package should be bid and awarded this spring and summer.

Final design of the entire project should be complete in early 2000.

Library of Congress Book Storage Facility at Fort Meade

Bids are due on February 12, 1999, for the construction of Storage Module #1 and

an adjacent office component and for initial site preparation and development work.

There has been an unusually high level of response to the Invitation for Bids. The

first storage module (of an anticipated total of 13) is 8,000 square feet and the office

component 5,000 square feet. Construction is expected to begin in April 1999 and

be completed in July 2000. Future modules, not tied to additional office components,

may be larger.

Roof Fall Protection Program

The objective of this complex-wide program is the design and installation of roof

fall protection systems on all buildings as required. At present the 30 percent construction documents are being reviewed for the U.S. Capitol and House and Senate

Office Buildings. The documents will be completed before the end of fiscal year

1999. Earlier in the design phase are systems for Library of Congress Buildings and

structures at D.C. Village. Attempts will be made to accelerate the completion of

construction documents for other buildings so that construction might possibly begin

subject to the availability of reprogrammed funds. The designs of systems for the

U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters Building and Webster Hall are being given priority for acceleration due to the need to obligate annual funds for a combination of

roof replacement and fall protection system installation.

Underground Storage Tanks

In compliance with the December 22, 1998, EPA mandate and working under a

Memorandum of Understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Architect

has temporarily closed all existing tanks. The Corps is working with AOC design

consultants on the replacement of those tanks identified as essential in support of

Congressional operations. Three diesel tanks have been designed and are with the

Corps for costing. A fourth is being designed. A gas tank and gas station are being

designed; conceptual plans are scheduled to be completed in early February 1999.

The Corps is also involved with the design of the excavation and removal of five
57

other tanks that have been out of service and are no longer needed. All of this work

is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 1999.

K–9 Facility for the U.S. Capitol Police

A facility to house twelve police dogs is under construction at D.C. Village. The

facility is under roof and windows and doors have been installed. Interior work is

underway including the configuration of the individual kennels. Completion is projected during February 1999.

APPENDIX H

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STATUS OF ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL YEAR 2000

READINESS, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

The AoC developed a ‘‘Year 2000 Compliance (Y2K) Plan’’ in May 1997. The plan

originally focused on internal systems, but now the AoC views the project in two

distinct, yet sometimes overlapping arenas: internal mission critical systems; and

externalities. As the Y2K industry’s focus has broadened to include external systems, so too has the AoC’s focus. Now, there are significant resources being assigned

to the development of a contingency plan for use in the event of an external utility

failure.

The status of the AoC’s internal systems has been monitored by GAO in its quarterly reports to the Senate Appropriation Legislative Branch Subcommittee for four

quarters now. The AoC provides input to GAO via the Mission Critical Systems inventory. This inventory was created as part of the initial AoC Y2K plan, and it is

continually being updated with system progress and newly identified systems. It

was created by the AoC’s Y2K committee, and recently it has been reassessed

through a series of meetings with each of the AoC jurisdictions. In addition, the inventory is being evaluated by Mitretek: an independent contractor. Currently, there

are 36 systems on the Mission Critical inventory. These systems include building

infrastructure systems: elevators; environmental control; Senate subway, as well as

AoC operational systems: accounting; project scheduling; networks; etc. In the latest

GAO report, the AoC identified 13 of the 36 mission critical systems as being implemented. So what is the status of the other 23 systems? Many of them are already

Y2K compliant or not date-dependent, but lack the documentation to include them

on the list of implemented systems. The remaining systems are being renovated and

tested, or are having a work-around developed and tested. The AoC has established

June 30, 1999 as the completion date for testing all systems, and is confident that

this date will be met. Additional funding to support vendor testing and certification,

and various system upgrades will be requested from GAO’s ‘‘emergency supplemental appropriations’’. At this time, the AoC knows of no internal system that will

result in a major disruption to operations because of its inability to properly process

2000 as a valid date. In addition, most of the building infrastructure equipment does

not rely on computer-chip technology or has a manual override for contingency purposes.

These building systems are of particular interest to their occupants, so it is appropriate to describe the status of some of them here.

The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) does not generate or distribute any electrical

power. It generates steam for heating the legislative buildings and chilled water for

cooling, including phone rooms, computer rooms, and LoC generators. It is totally

dependent on the District of Columbia water supply system for its massive consumption rate for generating steam and chilled water. The oil and coal fuel for

steam generation will be stockpiled in late 1999.

All electric power for the Capitol complex is provided by PEPCO.

The fire and life safety systems have been certified compliant by the vendors. The

Fire and Life Safety Office supports their claims, and additionally states that as a

contingency all ‘‘UL Listed’’ fire alarms have manual overrides. A complex-wide vendor test and certification of all the fire alarms is being planned.

The automated environmental control system directs the heating and cooling

units in most of the Capitol complex buildings. The software is currently non-Y2K

compliant, but the vendor keeps providing changing cost proposals for implementing

an upgrade. Engineering is evaluating the upgrade and at the same time investigating a work-around as a contingency. The heating and cooling units can be operated manually as a more extreme contingency.

There are 231 elevators throughout the Capitol complex, but only 65 of them use

computer-chip technology for controls or monitoring. There are four vendors that

have implemented different versions of their systems. The various versions have
58

been tested by AoC personnel, but the most frequently used vendor has been providing conflicting information about compliance. Only three elevators are in question, but our Elevator Engineering Division is preparing to upgrade them and is

scheduling vendor tests and certifications for most of the other systems too.

The Y2K project at the AoC has benefitted from the cooperative efforts of the Senate’s Y2K committee activities, the support of AoC top-level management, and the

active participation of the different AoC jurisdictions. The AoC is reasonably confident that its internal systems will continue operating without major disruptions

into the next century. This does not mean that the AoC will reduce its emphasis

on this project. Quite the opposite, the AoC is now taking a more pro-active role

in coordinating activities with outside organizations. The AoC attends meetings of

the CIO Council on Y2K, the House’s CAO Business Continuity & Contingency Plan

meetings, and more. The AoC, under the direction of the Assistant Architect, is

hosting its own weekly executive Y2K meetings, including sponsoring presentations

by the major utility providers about their Y2K status and contingency plans. Representatives from the other legislative agencies are being encouraged to participant

in these presentations. The briefing by PEPCO on February 16 is being followed by

a March 9 meeting to formulate table-top exercises and failure simulations involving

PEPCO, AoC and the U.S. Capitol Police. The other utility providers will be asked

to sponsor the same testing and planning opportunities.

This leads to the second focus of the Y2K project: externalities. Safe and inhabitable Legislative buildings are dependent on external utility suppliers. We do not

control these suppliers, but we are addressing the issue in two ways: (1), we are

discussing our concerns and developing mutually beneficial tests; and (2), we are developing a contingency plan that can be used in the event of a utility failure. As

noted above, the AoC has scheduled presentations with each of the major utilities

to learn about their Y2K preparedness and contingency plans and will continue a

dialogue with each of them. The dialogue will assist us in identifying existing systems that may need attention and provide direction for contingency planning. Presentations are scheduled to be given by Bell Atlantic (March 2), the D.C. Water and

Sewer Administration (March 9), Washington Gas (March 23) and the legislative

phone providers will be addressing their systems as well under their separate responsible entities.

The AoC’s contingency planning is in the information gathering phase. The office

of the Director of Engineering is conducting mechanical and electrical equipment

surveys of each building. This will be used to document which equipment is necessary to maintain the building infrastructure. The Architect has directed a load capacity test of all emergency generators which primarily serve life safety functions.

The Electrical Engineering Division will coordinate these tests and together with

the equipment survey, the Director of Engineering’s Office will develop a base-line

of services. This base-line will provide a picture of what can be operational in the

event of a partial or total utility failure. It will also be used to identify which equipment needs to be supported by alternative power to more comprehensively maintain

the buildings infrastructures. The AoC will propose reasonable ‘‘Alternative Occupancy Plans’’ that will address services that can be provided during a utility failure,

as well as the time and cost of providing each proposal. These proposals will be developed by March, 31, 1999 and will be presented for Congressional approval. Funding for the occupancy plan will be requested through GAO’s Y2K and emergency

supplemental appropriations as necessary. The contingency plan will also include a

‘‘Day-1 Plan’’ detailing recommendations for staffing, computer room preparation, office automation preparation, as well as identifying tasks that will be undertaken to

ensure the building operations are running smoothly.

The AoC views the Year 2000 preparations as a good opportunity to develop a contingency plan that can be adapted to function as a general emergency preparedness

plan. The same issues that are arising around the Y2K problems could happen any

day at any time and disable one or more external utility provider. The specific Y2K

contingency plan can be easily modified to be a non-specific emergency plan, and

will also provide some direction for building modifications that might lead to more

utility independent legislative buildings.
59

APPENDIX I

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION

The AoC is pursuing the upgrading and integration of information systems and

business practices in order to provide a business environment that provides timely

access to reliable information. Currently, AoC’s various systems do not share information or common data definitions. The implementation of a new Financial Management System (FMS) and the integration of other systems with FMS will be a

major step towards AoC’s system integration goal. The FMS implementation will

also lead to the AoC’s first preparation and audit of financial statements. These

goals are fully consistent with the Vision Statement of the Legislative Branch Financial Manager’s Council, which the agency adopted last year. The AoC is currently in the beginning stages of the FMS implementation.

The AoC requires a new financial system that is compliant with Federal standards, easily integrated with other systems, provides timely and accurate information

and contains electronic workflow capabilities. The new core financial system must

be tightly integrated with inventory, procurement and fixed assets systems. It must

also interface with the other AoC systems such as the facilities management system,

the human resources system, and the project tracking system.

The new Financial Management System, which will be compliant with all Federal

standards, will be implemented in phases. The first phase will be the implementation of the core financial system (including the Standard General Ledger), an inventory module or system, and a payroll interface from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Finance Center. Subsequent phases will include the implementation of a procurement system containing contract functionality, the integration of

FMS with the agency’s facility management system (CAFM) and the project tracking system (PS&C), the implementation of a fixed assets system, the enhancement

of the labor distribution accounting, and the development of an executive information system.

The AoC has included the members of the Legislative Branch Financial Group

Manager’s Council (LBFMC) in our financial systems implementation efforts and

will continue to coordinate future tasks with LBFMC related to financial management. Further, the General Accounting Office has provided staff assistance throughout this effort and has agreed to continue its assistance through the evaluation and

implementation phases.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

Implemented Y2K fix for accounting system.—In October, 1997, the AoC implemented a conversion of existing systems for an interim procurement, accounting and

inventory system that was Y2K compliant. An interim solution was pursued because

of time constraints relative to the year 2000. The interim system is referred to as

CAS (Computer Application System). Although the CAS system meets AoC’s needs

in the areas of purchasing, payables and inventory, it is not compliant with federal

standards and has limited budgeting and general ledger functionality. CAS was chosen as an interim solution because it was already being used for purchasing at the

AoC and it was more cost efficient than modifying the previous accounting system.

In addition to resolving the Y2K issue, the CAS system provided online processing

capabilities, and integrated procurement, receiving, payment, and inventory

functionality. Existing data residing on the UNISYS mainframe from the previous

accounting system was converted to CAS, and the UNISYS system was eliminated.

Hired consultant to validate our FMS requirements.—AoC contracted with a consultant to validate our FMS requirements and provide recommendations in the selection of a new FMS system. The consultant gathered our requirements, compared

the requirements to the 11 federally compliant financial packages offered on the

GSA Financial Management Software Schedule and determined that 3 packages potentially meet AoC’s requirements. The consultant also recommended that AoC consider an additional vendor since that vendor was the historical market leader in federal financial systems, and had software implemented in several Legislative offices.

In addition, the consultant recommended that the AoC resolve several business

practice issues before going forward with the procurement of a financial package.

Hired Project Manager to implement FMS.—A project manager was hired in November, 1998 to implement the Financial Management System and to maintain the

system upon the completion of the implementation. The new manager has recent

experience managing the implementations of federal financial systems in 5 federal
60

agencies as a consultant working for private industry. He also has previous experience managing financial operations as a government employee for 3 federal agencies. His expert knowledge of federal financial systems implementations and federal

financial management procedures will ensure a successful implementation of the

FMS system. The next step is the hiring of a small project team of systems accountants and financial management analysts to assist the project manager in the implementation of the system. This process is underway.

Developed draft Statement of Work for FMS procurement.—The AoC is currently

in the process of preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purchase of a core

financial management system. The RFP will contain a Statement of Work specifying

the software requirements and the implementation support required.

The draft Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed and is currently being

reviewed by AoC staff and GAO representatives. The SOW includes detailed requirements for the core financial system, inventory, procurement, fixed assets, system interfaces, reporting, and general technical requirements. The SOW also contains the requirements for contractor support required for implementing the first

phase of FMS (core system and inventory).

Developed draft Project Plan for FMS implementation.—A draft project plan has

been developed that describes the project purpose, tasks, staffing and provides a

risk management plan during implementation. Also provided is a detailed schedule

of the implementation tasks required to be performed, and a schedule of the ‘‘presoftware selection’’ tasks that need to be accomplished. The draft implementation

plan covers a 17 month implementation period with a ‘‘go live’’ date of 14 months

after the purchase of the software.

The selection of a vendor and the purchase of the software is tentatively scheduled to be accomplished by the end of this calendar year. This schedule is dependent

upon the appropriation of necessary funding (which is requested in fiscal year 2000),

our procurement approach and the resolution of several business process issues (discussed in the next section).

UPCOMING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

Select FMS package.—The AoC plans to select and purchase a financial management package by the end of this calendar year. This is an aggressive schedule when

considering the tasks that need to be performed to select a financial software package and it is being reviewed by the GAO. The requirements analysis performed by

a private consulting company (discussed under the accomplishments section), recommended the resolution of 3 business practice issues prior to purchasing a system.

The issues that affect the financial system requirements are as follows:

—Time Tracking.—Time tracking is an important element in the information required to manage facilities management activities and construction projects.

The consultant’s report recommends that the AoC define and standardize business practices to capture detailed, real time costs for labor by project and labor

category across AoC. This will provide AoC leadership adequate information for

planning, estimating, and managing work, and also enhance reporting capabilities to oversight and appropriations committees.

—Work Management.—Standard procedures are needed for performing facilities

management and construction management activities across the AoC. Currently, each jurisdiction operates differently, and there is a lack of consistent

communication across AoC jurisdictions with respect to resource usage. The

AoC also needs to review its segregated inventory practices and consider aligning inventory and procurement procedures with overall organizational inventory

needs.

—IRM Strategy and Infrastructure.—The AoC needs to clearly define its business

processes, organizations, business locations and functions in order to develop an

IRM strategy that achieves a truly integrated business process. The information

technology architecture must be aligned with, and support the organizations operation.

Prior to issuing a Request for Procurement, the three issues discussed above will

be addressed. Once the effect on the financial requirements are determined, the

statement of work can be adjusted and the AoC can go forward with the procurement.

Other tasks that AoC will perform prior to selecting a financial package are as

follows:

—The AoC will develop the criteria for evaluating the various vendor proposals.

As many as 11 proposals are expected to be received. Effective evaluation criteria will result in AoC choosing the best system to meet its requirements.
61

—The AoC will arrange informal demonstrations of the vendor products prior to

issuing the procurement document. This will allow AoC staff to gain preliminary knowledge regarding the vendors’ products prior to beginning the formal

evaluation process.

—After the receipt of the formal proposals, the AoC will ‘‘downselect’’ the best

qualified proposals and require the vendors to perform Operational Capability

Demonstrations (OCD) to demonstrate how their software meets the stated requirements. This process will allow AoC to determine if the systems perform

basic requirements in an efficient and user-friendly manner.

Implement the Financial Management System (FMS).—The FMS project includes

the implementation of a core financial system and the integration of the core system

with other AoC existing and planned systems. The system will be implemented in

phases as follows:

—Phase 1.—Implementation of the core financial system and inventor module.

This will include the development of an interface with the USDA payroll system

and the conversion of data from the existing financial system (CAS). The CAS

system will be phased out as the data is converted to FMS. Phase 1 is expected

to be complete by the end of fiscal year 2001.

—Phase 2.—Implementation of a procurement system that provides contractual

functionality. This will include the integration of the system with the core financial system. Also occurring during Phase 2 will be the resolution of any implementation issues from Phase 1. Phase 2 is expected to be completed by the

end of fiscal year 2002.

—Phase 3.—Integration of the Facilities Management System and the Project

Tracking System with FMS. This may also include the integration of a new

Time and Attendance system and the development of an Executive Information

System. This phase is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2003.

Inventory Improvements.—The AoC is currently in the process of improving its inventory operations to increase controls over the safeguarding of assets and provide

consistency across the jurisdictions in the application of inventory procedures. A

complete reconciliation of the actual ‘‘in-stock’’ inventory to the inventory accounting

records is in process. Procedures are being enhanced to ensure the continued accuracy of the information. A regularly occurring cycle count process is also being put

in place. These activities will not only enhance control over inventory operations,

they will also facilitate the FMS implementation and eventual auditing of financial

statements.

REMOVAL OF PARKING ON MARYLAND AVENUE

Senator BENNETT. Let me interrupt you with a very tiny item,

but nonetheless, given its source, I need to pursue it. A very senior

member of the United States Senate approached me and said: You

are the chairman of that subcommittee, are you not? I said yes.

He said: I run every day in that area, my daily run. And I have

watched the progress in the Botanic Gardens and the areas being

fenced off and so on. He said: In the course of fencing it off, you

have eliminated parking spaces for about 100 people who work on

Capitol Hill, and I never see any construction equipment in the

area of the parking spaces. Can you not restore those parking slots

for the individuals who work on the Hill who are now inconvenienced?

I do not know enough about construction and safety and the rest

of those things to answer his question. But given his seniority and

his position over me in another circumstance, I promised him I

would raise it, and I think it is something I would like to be able

to go back and report to him on.

Mr. HANTMAN. First of all, Mr. Chairman, alternative parking locations have been found for the people whose spots have been dislocated from Maryland Avenue, many of whom are in my agency.

Senator BENNETT. Oh, so you hear about it directly.

Mr. HANTMAN. I do, sir.
62

But we have worked with the House Sergeant at Arms and their

parking people to find alternative locations for these folks. What

we have done essentially is in closing Maryland Avenue we have

reserved the space for the contractors for the U.S. Fund, the National Fund area as well. We will have two different contractors

working on two separate contiguous projects. So we appropriated

half the site for the Botanic Garden and the other half for the National Fund project, which will be awarded within the next couple

of months.

Senator BENNETT. OK. I have now done my duty.

CAPITOL DOME RENOVATION

Mr. HANTMAN. The second major project which everybody is very

aware of is the dome project. We had gotten emergency funding to

the extent of $7.5 million to essentially do research into the Dome,

to find out what the real scope of the problem is. I guess the doctor

has to go in and cut the patient open a little bit to find out what

is in there. Hopefully, radiation therapy and things like that will

not be necessary.

We have awarded that first contract, which is really for the interstitial space between the inner dome and the outer dome, to remove the lead-based paint, to do inspection on every plate and

every structural member in that area, to be able to determine how

many cracked pieces of cast iron need to be replaced, can we fix

them in place, how are the connectors faring after 140 years.

All of this work is going to be underway. We have awarded the

contract. The contractor should be coming on site this month. He

will be staging his work between the central rotunda steps on the

east plaza and the Senate steps, and building scaffolding to get up

above the base building of the Senate to the dome itself. This is

projected to be an 18-month project.

We have requested clearance from our leadership on both the

Senate and the House side to be able to close the rotunda for a period of 3 weeks plus or minus in order to set up the scaffolding that

we will need to protect the rotunda so that we can do that work

and allow people to continue to walk through.

I am not sure, sir, if you have seen our renderings. Rather than

going back to what had been done in 1959 or so, 1960, when work

was last done, that required scaffolding from the floor of the rotunda all the way up to the Apotheosis, we are trying to hang our

scaffolding, essentially our netting, from the upper levels of the

walkways so that they will drape below the column level and you

will still be able to see essentially, Apotheosis, essentially through

a doughnut of draperies.

This is not a containment element relative to removal of the hazardous materials, the lead-based paint we have up above. That will

be done square foot by square foot in a contained area within the

interstitial space. What this is meant to do is protect against any

paint or other elements from spalling off the inside surface of the

rotunda.

So we will need to close the rotunda itself for several weeks to

set up this netting and the scaffolding required for it, and then ultimately we would have to, I think, at the closing stage close it

again to remove the scaffolding.
63

Part of the design for it, again, was meant to allow us to leave

that scaffolding in place should we need to have a lying in state

or a special activity in the rotunda itself, and this is the clearance

that we are looking for from the leadership, because the two to

three days we would need to take it down would not be adequate

to remove scaffolding and spend several hundred thousand dollars

again putting it back up should we need it at that point in time.

So the project should get underway. We think we will still be

able to have dome tours for a short period of time, perhaps the last

week of March and early April, before we seriously get started with

the removal process itself. We have in this year’s budget a request for some $28 million,

which is building on what we think the scope of work of this work

will show us. We have done a lot of inspection work over there. I

think this work will continue to inform us on what the real scope

wants to be.

But we did not want to lose a year in the appropriations——

CAPITOL DOME RENOVATION COST

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could I interrupt, with the chairman’s approval, just on that one point?

Mr. HANTMAN. Surely.

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding that a few years ago the dome project was estimated to cost $3 to $4 million. Now you

just mentioned $28 million, and it is projected, I believe, to cost

$35.5 million. That is a huge increase. Is the $35.5 million figure now a firm figure?

Mr. HANTMAN. This is exactly what I was beginning to talk to,

Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Sorry.

Mr. HANTMAN (continuing). The issue of the first $7.5 million,

which was an emergency appropriation, was meant to help us find

out just those facts. Until we get in and really do the inspection,

we are not going to know what the real number wants to be. It

would be grabbing at air.

What we are doing right now in this first phase, the $7.5 million

phase, will be looking at every plate, every structural member, all

of the components that go into the dome itself, to determine what

the full scope wants to be.

The $28 million that we are recommending in this budget would

build on that $7.5 million, and that would include not only remedial work inside the dome, but outside the dome, inside the rotunda, all of the work. The original $3 million that had been estimated by my predecessor on this was basically a quick and dirty

paint job on the outside of the dome, and even in that sense it did

not take into account the EPA criteria for contained removal of

lead-based paint.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So what you are saying is we actually at this

stage have no idea what the total cost is going to be?

Mr. HANTMAN. We have a fairly good idea. What we will be seeing is——

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it is what?

Mr. HANTMAN. The $7.5 million is the first increment. We are requesting $28 million right now for the next phase, and we have
64

earmarked some $2 million in an out year if that $28 million is not

adequate. So we are looking at potentially $37.5 million for the

project, which is a project that—much of this work has not been

touched for 140 years, from the gutters to the structural elements

to repairing plates.

Back in 1959–1960 they did some minor work on this area, but

the balustrades have to be totally replaced. They have rusted out.

Some of those plates are being held on by rust right now. We will

be doing repairing of existing plates in place, trying not to remove

the shell of the dome. In fact, we had John Whitman, Christie Todd

Whitman’s husband, in the other day talking about the restoration

project they just did in New Jersey—a much smaller dome, but

learning from their experiences and working with them, as we have

also in Ohio on a similar dome by the same architect on a courthouse. We have been doing that kind of investigation.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Just one last question. Are you saying, then, that the firm final figure for the work on the dome is $37 million?

Or are you saying this is just an estimate of what our preliminary

stuff might additional cost, it could be much more?

Mr. HANTMAN. That is our best sense of what it would cost. We

do not believe it will be much more.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. If you want, Senator Feinstein, I am sure the

Architect would be happy to take you on the same tour that he

took me on, where you walk through and look at some of these

things.

Mr. HANTMAN. We welcome that opportunity.

Senator BENNETT. Until you actually have it pointed out to you,

you do not realize——

Senator FEINSTEIN. How much needs to be done.

Senator BENNETT (continuing). How much needs to be done.

It is incredible to me that this cast iron building that was put

up 150 years ago has basically had nothing done to it except paint

in that period.

Mr. HANTMAN. It is virtually true.

Senator BENNETT. It is really quite an interesting tour.

Mr. HANTMAN. I think it is heartening to know that we did a

structural analysis of the physical structure, the trusses that really

hold up the dome, a three-dimensional computerized structural

analysis to take a look at whether we are really deteriorating up

there, and we found out that it was well designed, well built. We

are not in trouble structurally.

It is really the skin that is the issue right now, and it looks wonderfully pristine when it is lit up at night. But we would be happy

to show you the issues.

Senator BENNETT. Keep it lit. [Laughter.]

DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION

Mr. HANTMAN. The next basic project, Dirksen Senate Office

Building. The design is virtually complete. We are underway with

some of the swing space construction in the Russell Courtyard.

You, Mr. Chairman, of course are going to be very directly impacted by this project.
65

Senator BENNETT. Yes, I am going to have to move out of my office.

Mr. HANTMAN. Right, into SDG–50, which is well appointed for

that. It is going to be musical chairs for all of the members, as well

as the committees, that are inhabitants of that building. But we

are going to bring it up to the state of the art. So we do have $18

million in the fiscal year 2000 budget request for that as well.

Senator BENNETT. Remind me again how long this is going to take and how much money we are going to have each year? Is $18

million——

Mr. HANTMAN. It is one more increment of $18 million.

Senator BENNETT. That would be the following year?

Mr. HANTMAN. Correct. The total project cost as we are seeing it is $54 million. We have $8.5 million this year and we have had——

Mr. PREGNALL. $8.5 million previously.

Mr. HANTMAN. $8.5 million previously.

Senator BENNETT. So the bulk will be in fiscal year 2000 and

2001, and then it will start to taper off?

Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct, sir.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could I? Does this include the air conditioning system as well? Are you looking at that?

Mr. HANTMAN. We are looking into the mechanical distribution

system as well. One of the major issues is the flexibility to divide

spaces into sub-offices or into large open offices at the discretion of

the member. It is not there now. We have perimeter systems. So

we will have air-diffuser light fixtures where you will be able to put

up partitions and control the distribution of air much more reasonably.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Because there is a wide swing on the quality

of air in this building, in particularly the hearing rooms. Some are

fine, like this one. Others are just dreadful. Like for example, right

now in Judiciary, every public hearing since this session the lights

go out, everything goes out, and the air does not work at all right.

The Foreign Relations one is the same, very poor air quality. I

just think you should know that.

Mr. HANTMAN. We are very well aware of that, Senator, and we

are going to be resolving that as part of this problem.

Senator BENNETT. It is interesting to me to discover that the

Russell Building technologically is probably at the highest level of

any of the three buildings.

Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct.

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is interesting.

Senator BENNETT. They have gone through and upgraded Russell

completely and now they are doing it to Dirksen.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I can tell you, the Hart air is terrible. It is

all contained, so the bad air goes from one office to the other.

Mr. HANTMAN. That is the newest building, obviously.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Anyway.

VISITORS CENTER

Mr. HANTMAN. The last project I just wanted to surface with you

because I will be coming to you fairly shortly on it is the Capitol

visitors center. Obviously, $100 million was applied to my budget

as of last year, basically earlier this year. What I owe you folks is
66

an obligation plan, and that is what I am working on and am hoping to submit to you and to the matching Legislative Branch Appropriations Committee on the House side next week.

This obligation plan is to talk about the planning phase of what

needs to be done in response to the legislation that was passed

along with that appropriation. That legislation called for a revalidation, a re-examination, of the 1995 plan, the components of

that plan, the location of the visitors center itself.

In my cover letter to you I will be saying that I have a very high

degree of comfort and sense of correctness of the 1995 plan, and I

am hoping that we can short-circuit some of the criteria that is put

in the legislation, specifically reporting to at least six different committees and leadership on both sides of the House. I will be submitting two schedules to you: one, a worst case schedule, assuming one

committee gives us approval on what we are talking about, another

one says yes, but change this, another says no, but change that,

and we will never get concurrence and be able to move ahead.

There was an editorial in Roll Call not too long ago indicating

that I was horrendously holding up the project. What I am trying

to do is respond to what the legislation says and, concurrently with

that, give you a recommendation of what an expedited schedule

could be given the fact that we can have a review and approval

process that we are all comfortable with.

So that should be coming to you next week in terms of the appropriations requirement and I assume, based on the legislation, it

then has to go to the six committees and whatever. So I will be

asking you to essentially give us a few dollars up front so we can

start the process while the big considerations are being looked at,

so that we can move ahead with what is essentially a security and

a life safety issue. So we will be talking further on that.

OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT

Mr. HANTMAN. Operations improvement. When I came in here,

basically FMS systems were nonexistent; work management systems were nonexistent. We are trying to build a foundation here for

this agency so that we can report as necessary to report, monitor

all the expenditure of funds as necessary for you folks to be comfortable that we are monitoring them, for the GAO to be comfortable on that.

We have installed a CAFM system, computer-assisted facilities

management system, which the Senate did fund us for, and it was

used for the first time during this selection cycle. So the Senate

Rules Committee was able to call up on their computer screen

every suite that the Senators might have, look at the musical

chairs that we were playing with the changes of suites, being able

to coordinate it with the Sergeant at Arms and their needs to look

at it, and make that selection process much quicker and much

more coordinated.

We are also beginning to implement that on the House side. We

have implemented it in the Capitol as well. Demand work orders

are now being captured on that system as well, so we can take a

look at how many hours, days it took to perform a function, how

we are using our time much more efficiently. So we think that is
67

a major first step in terms of our accountability to the Senate and

to the Congress as a whole.

On HRMD, the human resources management, we do have an

appendix that talks about all of the issues that we looked at. Revitalization of our training program. Upward mobility programs have

been signed off with the union. We are actively negotiating with

them on several of these areas.

Policy standardization across the board is very important. Larry

Stoffel is here from the Senate Office Buildings, does an excellent

job; Amita Poole from the Capitol Building itself; and of course Bob

Miley services the House Office Buildings.

Now, each one of these areas had basically been doing things

their own way for many years. Now that we have unions, we have

a compliance board meeting to standardize procedures and policies

across the campus to make sure that we are doing things fairly, equitably, and getting the job done. This is what HRMD is striving

to do and I think in the appendix on that we talk about many of

those issues, and we are hoping to continue to build a strong relationship with the union and the folks that they represent as part

of our agency.

RE-ENGINEERING PLAN

In terms of re-engineering, we have been talking about being

able to offer selected groups within our organization buyouts where

it is appropriate. We have gotten approval on the first year of the

3-year buyout program from the Senate side. We have not yet gotten approval from the House side for that same program.

Part of our goal had been to pay for the buyouts out of appropriated funds on salaries for that year. We are now past the point

of return on this fiscal year where we would no longer have funds

available to pay off the maximum of $25,000 that our people would

be eligible for on a purely voluntary basis. So we will probably be

coming back to you with a request to expand that 3-year authority

to do a fourth year so that come October 1st we can do what we

had planned to do this fiscal year, but we have not been able to

do because we have not gotten the signoffs on that yet. So we are

moving on that, however.

We are also doing training for all supervisory managers, skill enhancement programs, etcetera, trying to bring our people up to

modern management methodologies.

LIFE SAFETY

Life safety focus. As you pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, the

Russell Building is in pretty good shape. The Dirksen Building is

going to be moving along as part of this project. We have some $16

million earmarked in this budget for life safety programs.

We have centralized life safety across the campus under our Executive Officer Lynne Theiss, who is here with us today.

Senator BENNETT. Pardon me. What is your definition of ‘‘life

safety’’?

Mr. HANTMAN. Emergency means of egress, fire detection, sprinkler alarms, separate from the security issues relative to the police.

Senator BENNETT. OK.
68

Mr. HANTMAN. Those are two separate but yet interconnected

issues.

So we are moving ahead on that. Many egress doors that never

met code before have been complied with. You will see that in the

Capitol. You will also see that in the Senate office buildings. There

are doors that never had emergency signs on it, panic hardware,

any of that nature; they are being retrofitted. In fact, revolving

doors will be replaced as well for means of egress throughout our

Capitol complex. So we are moving on that very well.

PHYSICAL SECURITY MASTER PLAN

As far as security is concerned, one thing that did not come up

in the hearing with the Capitol Police Board was the master plan

we are doing on the physical security side. Part of our two-day retreat, we will have a report from our task force on physical security

that is looking into training facilities that the police badly need,

what will happen as their staff grows and they need additional

locker areas, they need additional command center functions, offsite inspection for trucks, things of this nature, vehicle maintenance facilities.

All of these elements are part of the master plan and we are trying to coordinate that with the Library of Congress, with the Supreme Court as well and their need for inspection as well as training of their separate police groups as well.

So we are looking at that. We will be talking about that with the

Capitol Police Board over the next couple of days and ultimately

coming back with recommendations on what we think that master

plan wants to be.

PERIMETER SECURITY

Relative to the perimeter security program, we just got signoff

from the House of Representatives last week on the perimeter security program for Capitol Square. We had gotten signoff from the

Senate on the perimeter security programs surrounding the Senate

office buildings and we are proceeding on that. Our construction

documents should be complete this month. We should be in the

ground this summer.

We will be negotiating with the foundry that prepared the design

and the castings for the White House. The bollards that are surrounding the White House right now have Secret Service clearance.

They have been designed specifically for certain levels of criteria

which we are going to be incorporating into the Capitol as well.

We had a kickoff meeting yesterday relative to the perimeter security program on the Capitol Square itself, now that the House

has signed off on it. We are going to start a survey to take a look

at where all the trees are, how the bollards can be integrated into

the landscape, what kind of gates we might need for State of the

Union Addresses or Inauguration Addresses, for automobiles or

trucks or whatever to get in to service the grounds, and all of these

issues are starting up now, now that we have gotten the clearances

to move on that.
69

Y2K COMPUTER COMPLIANCE

Next issue is Y2K. We have taken this very seriously. We have

meetings every week on Y2K within our organization, and we are

very much involved with the GAO and they are looking over our

shoulders as well. We have renovated and validated some 27 of our

36 mission critical systems. These are internal systems.

GAO has approved 16 of these 27 systems at this point in time

and we are confident that the remaining 9 systems will be complete

in time for the Y2K criteria. We can certainly go into that in much

more detail. We have charts and graphs if you would like at this

point, Mr. Chairman.

The other issue certainly deals with things that are relatively beyond our control. I have met personally with Chairman John

Derick of PEPCO, with D.C. Water. We are talking with GSA on

the steam supplies they have to the Capitol complex. Bell Atlantic,

we met with them yesterday. Our fuel oil suppliers—all of these

issues to find out where external suppliers are relative to their

ability to support us.

As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, I think most of these folks

have attorneys on their staffs and nobody will guarantee anything.

But we are fairly comfortable that PEPCO has told us that they

are in excellent shape relative to this. D.C. Water we are checking

into further because PEPCO is out of business if D.C. Water is not

able to do what they need to do.

So those external issues are very much on our minds. We are

working on that. What would happen if PEPCO did not provide us

with the power or the water from D.C.? Basically, we have emergency generators that would give us emergency power, lighting, essentially to evacuate the buildings. We have over 13 million square

feet up here on the Hill and we do not have the capability to have

redundant systems to provide power for all of our office buildings

to be operating.

We are looking into alternatives should power not be available

for some elements within the Capitol building itself and the availability of additional generating capacity through DOD are things

that we are looking at, as well as trying to guarantee that we will

have the water to make systems work in the first place.

If you would like, sir, I could introduce Rick Kashurba, who is

our Director of IRM, and his staff to talk you through where we

are, what systems we have been looking at, and where we are.

Senator BENNETT. I do not think I will take the time of the subcommittee to do that. But we may very well find a time when we

can go through that.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Mr. HANTMAN. The next issue is the financial management system. We have hired a new project manager, Russ Follin, Russ over

here. Russ is our key man on this. He has implemented FMS systems for five Federal agencies on a consulting basis. He has been

actively working with four other Federal agencies as an internal

employee on FMS systems as well.

We have hired Arthur Andersen to validate our requirements.

Our requirements are basically complete. GAO is reviewing them
70

right now. We are resolving our business practices issues, and our

targeted completion is for April.

We have developed a statement of work, an RFP, a project plan,

which GAO is also reviewing right now. They were actively involved with us in selecting both Mr. Follin and looking at our criteria as well. They are very comfortable, as we understand it, right

now with it.

We expect to put the RFP out this summer, contractor award with the fiscal 2000 budget. We are asking for some $3.3 million

for this project in fiscal year 2000. We expect to begin implementation the end of this calendar year.

GAO has provided staff sources to date. They have indicated a

willingness to continue this, and we touch base with them at every

step of the way. So we are very comfortable that what we are about

to go out on the street with will meet our requirements.

Mr. Follin has again seen some horror stories with other Federal

agencies, learned from that experience, and we are trying to make

sure that we do not repeat some of those mistakes.

So if there are any further questions on FMS, we can talk about

that here again, or again it could be a separate hearing.

Senator BENNETT. GAO recommended that this new position report directly to you and I understand you have made the decision

not to have that happen. Do you want to take this opportunity to

explain to us why you chose to have the reporting structure something other than the GAO recommendation?

Mr. HANTMAN. Most of my senior officers have direct access to

me at all times. For a day to day reporting and coordination basis,

working with Stuart Pregnall, our Budget Officer, to help coordinate all of that between his areas and other areas seemed to make

sense.

This is nothing that I put on the back burner or take for granted.

I am involved in the process. We have virtually constant meetings

on this, both the Y2K and the FMS. But on a day to day basis, getting it up and running in this way was what I thought made the

most sense.

Senator BENNETT. Well, I do not want to micromanage or second

guess your management decisions, but as we got into this area and

you very aggressively moved to try to make things better, this was

one very firm recommendation and I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain why you have decided to do it differently.

But be aware that we are aware of where you are. We are delighted that you are on board, Mr. Follin, and that the kind of

changes that needed to be made seem to be underway.

Mr. HANTMAN. I am confident that we are moving in the right

direction. We certainly need to be much more accountable than this

agency has ever been, and that is exactly where we are going.

OPERATING BUDGET

The last issue on the agenda, of course, is the fiscal year 2000

request. It is a very large request, as Senator Feinstein mentioned

earlier on. The percentage increases are also significant. Two parts,

components, of this budget.

One is the operating budget, at $168.3 million. This represents

a 10.7 percent increase over last year; 38 percent of that 10.7 is
71

mandated pay and benefit increases, which we do not control; 33

percent is utility increases; 40 percent of that is for water and

sewer increases coming to us from the District and back charges

as well; 17 percent is IRM, which we are beginning to implement

and move on up, technology-related types of costs. So that is basically the 10.7 percent increase. We are trying to keep it down.

Otherwise, part of our re-engineering effort was for us to be able

to take a look at our staffing levels, how appropriate is it, what levels of staff do we need at key areas throughout the agency, how

much of that work should be looked at for outside sources. We were

committed through this 3-year re-engineering effort to cut back on

our core staff as a natural function of re-engineering, not for the

function of downsizing, not for the function of privatization, but for

good management techniques.

We are hoping to return to you, after the 3-year program is implemented, some $4 to $5 million in operating costs. That has been

our goal and that was the basis upon which we requested this 3-

year buyout and it was approved. So that is where we are on that.

CAPITAL BUDGET

With respect to our capital budget, yes, it is a very large number.

Over the last two presentations to you, Mr. Chairman—clearly,

Senator Feinstein was not involved in that—we had gone through

an exercise to take a look at benchmarking, what kind of appropriate benchmarking levels we might have as we talk about capital

projects. We had come up with, as you may recall, a 1.7 percent

of replacement value of the buildings that are under our care.

We had, for your information, Senator Feinstein, we were talking

about basically a $3.6 billion replacement value of the buildings on

Capitol Hill; 1.7 percent basically comes out to about a $60 million

reinvestment on a cyclical basis each year, just to stay steady, not

for new projects, not for new technology, not for special security

projects. That level of investment is very appropriate throughout

other governmental agencies. GSA I think is at 2 percent, the

Corps of Engineers 1.75 percent is what they aim for. Federal depreciation allowance from the IRS is 40 years, as you may know,

on a project, 2.5 percent annually if it converts to that.

So we think we are very conservative in terms of those numbers.

Every project we bring before you clearly has to be supported in

and of itself, but in terms of measuring the quantity once they

start adding up we think that that $60 million, that is 1.7 percent,

is not a bad benchmark for us to look at.

We had requested some $53 million in last fiscal year for capital

cyclical projects. I think $46 million was approved.

Going back over the last half a dozen years, taking a look at that

benchmark line—again, we have charts on it, which we may not

need at this point, but we can certainly get into it in more detail

later—if you look at that $60 million line going out over time and

the actual appropriations that have been given for capital projects,

we basically have a deficit of about $155 million over the last years

that never met that line.

When I came in in 1997 there was $14 million in the capital

budget, which had come down from $33 million to $30 million to
72

$28 million, $24 million, and we were really not reinvesting in our

infrastructure the way we needed to.

I appreciate your comment earlier, Mr. Chairman, that some

things are long overdue, and the comment you made last year also

when we came to you on our $56 million budget was: If this is an

average, if this is a mean, you are going to have to go above that

mean some time to come up with the average. I think last year we

had projected for this year $111 million. We are coming before you

with $102 million basically for the cyclical maintenance component

of that, in addition to the new projects that we are looking at.

So again, many projects here—the Capitol dome, $28 million; the

Dirksen Building, $18 million; $5 million for replacement of the

chiller on the east plant; $16 million total in life safety. In your

backup material we break it down by category and prioritize it,

starting with life safety, security, ADA, all of those going down as

the highest priorities. Cyclical maintenance in there as well, technology.

So that, depending on where the budget ends up, we can take

our first priorities and see what we can really afford to do. But that

is the full exercise that we have gone through, and we certainly

can talk about any individual project or the total scope as necessary.

CAPITAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Senator BENNETT. I have no problem with the concepts you have

just outlined. I am a little concerned that there seems to be some

delay in the implementation of some money we have appropriated

for you that in fact has not been spent as delays have come along.

Are the delays occasioned by the committee structure you have

to go through? Have you run into more problems that slow you

down than you had anticipated in terms of the reactions you get

back? Why do we have that kind of a backlog building up?

Mr. HANTMAN. On the projects that need approval from both the

Senate and the House, it was interesting because on my first anniversary I went before the House Legislative Branch Committee and

Congressman Vic Fazio asked me how I felt about the job right

now, what was the biggest surprise that I had found and not expected? I spoke before that committee, which was chaired by Jim

Walsh of New York, and I indicated the biggest surprise was really

I had expected to be negotiating between Democrats and Republicans and that being the biggest problem, but I found the biggest

problem is the difference in philosophy between the House and the

Senate.

That in fact is a reality, certainly relative to the perimeter security and the time frame for approving that project and some of the

other security-related issues. Our re-engineering effort was signed

off on——

Senator BENNETT. Who is the most spendthrift, the Senate?

[Laughter.]

Mr. HANTMAN. I think that I am actually very pleased——

Senator FEINSTEIN. He is not going to answer. [Laughter.]

Senator BENNETT. He has been around here 2 years. He has

learned a few things.
73

Mr. HANTMAN. I am actually very pleased on both sides of the

Capitol rotunda with the concept that I think people, members on

both sides, are very really—very concerned with the conservation

of these national landmarks of our heritage here. I have been very

heartened by the fact that I come before the Senate, I come before

the House, and I try as a professional to present the information,

the facts, do a tour, show where the walls are falling down, what

the issues are all about, and when people recognize that they say:

We have to fix it.

So I think that has happened. Certainly it happened with the

dome. It is happening on the visitors center as well, although it

takes a little longer, and which is why I am going to be giving you

two schedules in this obligation plan for the visitors center. If we

can work out methodologies that make sense, we can move with

alacrity. If we cannot, I have found that my expectations, whether

it is on re-engineering or perimeter security, I have not been able

to get the kind of approvals or reviews as I would like to get, so

things have to fall back.

Unfortunately, some of these things are, just like PEPCO, beyond

my control.

SENATE RESTAURANTS

Senator BENNETT. One very minor question, and you will get it

on the Rules Committee from Senator Santorum. You last year predicted that the Senate restaurants would be——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, yes.

Senator BENNETT. You have already gone through that? The Senate restaurants would be $200,000 in the black in 1998

and $600,000 in the black in 1999. Would you care to take another

stab at that one?

Mr. HANTMAN. Let me introduce Lynne Theiss, who is director

of the restaurants, and I have promoted her to be our Executive Officer as well.

Ms. THEISS. Good morning, Senator.

Senator BENNETT. Good morning. I assume that congratulations

are due.

Ms. THEISS. Yes, sir.

We had a very successful process working with the Rules Committee last year of offering two buyouts to the Senate restaurant

employees. In that process, approximately 42 employees left voluntarily, some that were at retirement age, and we basically found in

the review by GAO and KPMG, who are the outside auditors who

come in and do the records on the Rules Committee, that one of

the problems, we had too much labor, we had redundant systems.

Senator, you may recall that in the old days the Senators dining

room was serviced strictly from the basement kitchen in the Capitol. We spent a great deal of money several years ago to renovate

the pantry, but we still kept all the cooks. So we had double sets

of cooks because the other set of cooks were doing the public dining

room only several years ago.

Through attrition, we were hoping that they would naturally

leave when they became eligible. So we offered a buyout and we

found out that they were waiting for that opportunity, which is one

of the reasons why we went forward with the AOC’s re-engineering
74

package, understanding that there was a need, that people were

waiting for the opportunity given to other Legislative Branch employees.

At this point, with the 40 employees gone, that is almost $700,000 in payroll you are looking at as a savings. We have, again

with the Rules Committee’s approval, made some organizational

changes as far as the operations, changing where we have some

services being offered, extending some hours, and starting to open

up facilities that were not opened adequately.

Some of the opportunities that will be coming out very shortly in

the spring for the Senators dining room will be afternoon tea on

Thursday afternoon, because we know Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and

Thursdays are normally late night sessions. That being the case,

we are saying let us do some transition work and have afternoon

tea available and then in the evening have an actual dinner being

available in the dining room, versus using just the inner sanctum,

which was very, very casual.

This way, if you want to have family come in, if there are other

groups that want to come in, we can utilize those resources. It was

basically an underutilized operation in the Capitol.

Over here in the office buildings, our current appraisal is that we

are ahead of sales from last year by over $300,000 for the first

quarter, and that is very heartening to see, that people are saying

these are good changes, let us keep going with it.

There are some operational issues that still have to be addressed.

You can only squeeze so many people into some of these facilities.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am not familiar with the term ‘‘ahead of

sales.’’ What does that mean?

Senator BENNETT. The top line is up by $300,000.

Ms. THEISS. That is correct.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right.

Senator BENNETT. We do not have a bottom line yet.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, all right.

Ms. THEISS. At this point what we are running into, and we have

had very good cooperation with the Rules Committee, is during the

planning process with the Dirksen renovation, so that we can still

have outside constituents who have used these facilities for catering have additional spaces to go to, so if we move somebody out we

will not have lost revenue even during the Dirksen renovation process as well.

So we are looking for the black this year.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Senator Feinstein, questions?

SENATE EMPLOYEES CHILD CARE CENTER

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like to ask about something that is

not as prominent as the dome, but it is the Senate employees child

care center. What I have been told concerns me greatly. That is

that this was originally scheduled for groundbreaking in the fall of

1996 and to be completed in the fall of 1997. It remains incomplete.

Senator BENNETT. I do not think we will meet those dates.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do not think so. There have been numerous

delays in construction and completion of the project. There has

been contamination of mold at the new site in April of 1998, and

I am told that this mold contamination was preventable. Obviously,
75

it was not prevented. The child care board of directors has been

given numerous projected completion dates by your office and none

of these commitments have been met.

To date, construction remains incomplete. No work has been

done at the site since August of 1998 and mold remediation has not

been initiated, as projected by the Architect’s staff for February to

April of 1999.

Now, the questions. Can you explain the reason or reasons for

the significant delay in completion? Let us start with that one.

Mr. HANTMAN. Sure. When the mold was first discovered in the

building, it clearly should have been preventable. It should not

have happened. The contractor has accepted responsibility for that.

He had not put the flashing on top of the copings.

We have a cavity wall. It is a brick construction on the outside

and block on the inside with an air space between. So, because we

had very heavy wind and rain during that period of time in April

and preceding that period, water got into some portions of the

building that was under construction.

At that point in time it was on schedule. What happened was we

were concerned about this. We had many meetings with the people

at the Senate, with the board. We determined that what we needed

to do was to get a mold remediation program defined, do inspections, do tests.

We hired specialists in this area of contamination. The board

also hired somebody. We got the NIH, National Institute of Health,

involved as well to take a look, to have the best minds involved,

because clearly once you start talking about a mold which might

have potentially health-related issues to it, you wanted to make

sure that you got the right program to go ahead.

Once the tests were taken and in fact the mold was identified,

the specification needed to be determined as to what needs to be

done to remediate it, what needs to be taken out, etcetera. It was

found that the sheetrock—basically, this mold grows on cellulosebased products. The sheetrock on the interior wall surfaces was

contaminated up to about six or eight inches above the baseboard,

and not an awful lot more than that.

The issue here was that the board had been pressing the Architect to do the work himself to remediate it, where the responsibility

from our perspective and from a legal perspective basically lay with

the contractor. So what we have done is to have the contractor—

the contractor in fact is on the site today with three bidders who

have been approved by the board’s experts as well as our experts

as people who are good in the field, able to do the work.

He will pay those bidders if he selects one. We are aiming to

have this available and completed for the fall semester. We have

lost a year, there is no doubt about that. Part of the issue here has

been our expert talking to the board’s expert talking to the National Institute of Health and having them coordinate what they

thought the appropriate way was so that people could finally say,

yes, this is the way to pursue this.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Was it possible to carry out the work concurrently? Everything had to stop?

Mr. HANTMAN. Basically, the building is not very far—Michael,

maybe you want to respond to that.
76

Mr. TURNBULL. The building is not that far from completion, but

in order not to contaminate anything else we want to do the mold

remediation first before anything else is done, because we want to

make sure that the building is totally clean, that our consultants

and the board consultants have gone through and certified that

they feel comfortable that the problem has been addressed, before

we finish up.

There is really not a lot left. We are 90 percent finished with

that project.

Mr. HANTMAN. So there are some windows to be installed, things

of that nature. We need to pressure-test the exterior brickwork to

make sure that there is no further leakage coming in. Then we will

have to, once the contractor finishes his work, we will have to come

in and do the interior work and things of that nature so that we

are complete by August.

SENATE EMPLOYEES CHILD CARE CENTER PRIORITY

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would

very much like to urge them to raise the priority of this project.

I mean, it is something that is really important——

Senator BENNETT. It is one of the items that I was going to address myself, yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN (continuing). Employees. And it is rather disheartening to see this kind of thing happen, and everything just

stops and you fall so far behind schedule. For me it is a priority

and I hope it would be for you.

Senator BENNETT. Yes, yes, absolutely.

Senator FEINSTEIN. We might say, Mr. Architect, we will be

watching.

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, ma’am, fully understood.

Senator BENNETT. To put it in perspective, this will become Senator Feinstein’s Y2K.

Senator FEINSTEIN. My pet project. We will see if we can get it

done.

Mr. HANTMAN. If you would like a walk-through——

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like a walk-through.

Mr. HANTMAN. Let us do that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I figure there is enough big wheels to take

care of the dome. I will concentrate on the child care center.

Mr. HANTMAN. We will arrange that.

VISITORS CENTER SITE PLAN

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Could I ask you with respect to the

visitors center. I heard the presentation at the Rules Committee

and was really impressed. Really, I sort of came to the conclusion

at least that we should move ahead with the major one.

Could you just quickly indicate, is the siting firm? Where are you

on the design of the center? What is the time line now? What are

the estimates of funding, and when will you be releasing them?

Mr. HANTMAN. As I indicated earlier, Senator, I will be sending

to you next week, it is called an obligation plan, as required by the

legislation. The Senate in negotiations with the House put some

language in there that indicated that everything that had been

done before that formed the foundation for the 1995 plan basically
77

needed to be revisited and validated, which is why I talk about a

worst case schedule.

We have had some people talk to us about: Is it in the right

place? Maybe we should do it on the west front? Maybe it should

be at Postal Square. Maybe it should not be here at all. If that kind

of direction is given to us during this first phase, I do not know

how long the process will take.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just quickly ask you: Architecturally,

do you think the siting is correct?

Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely, I think it is in the right place.

VISITORS CENTER SECURITY

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you do not believe it presents a threat

to the Capitol? Some of those questions have been raised.

Mr. HANTMAN. Relative to—we have so many doors coming in the

Capitol right now. With the Capitol Police sitting here earlier

today, we could have talked about the fact that visitors can come

through so many entrances right now, it is a problem for the members of the police force to know who is a Senator, who is a

Congressperson in the first place. But when you get 95 percent of

your visitors who are unknown coming through multiple doors, the

idea of how do you protect at any level of standoff from the entrances or recognize that this person is unknown to you, this is a

staff door, you should not be coming here.

The concept of the visitors center is that 95 percent of the people

who come to the Capitol will be coming through the visitors center,

which is a standoff distance of 300 feet from the Capitol itself. That

is where the magnetometers will be. That is where our restudy

really does have to focus to heighten our ability to do quick and respectful clearance and prepping of people before they get into the

visitors center, which would give them free access to the Capitol

basically beyond there.

So from a police perspective it makes eminently good sense to do

it and to give us a nice way for all of our visitors to come in to

see the Capitol to be oriented to what they are going to see when

they get in, what the rotunda is all about, what the history of our

legislative government is all about.

I talked before about there really being two projects here. One

of them is the physical facility itself. The other is what goes into

it, which is why I have suggested at past hearings that what we

probably want to do—and I am not sure how leadership would feel

about it—is in parallel with the construction documents and the

planning of the physical facility, which if the existing 1995 plan is

found to be acceptable by the many committees that we are going

before, we will go back and we will talk about why the west front

is not the appropriate place to do it.

But I plan to do that expeditiously, because I think we are in the

right location. I think the security issues are being addressed very

clearly. I think it meets a lot of the needs, including circulation

from one side of the Capitol to the other that this helps expedite,

as well as garbage removal, which is done in the open right now.

All of these issues are addressed, I think, very well in this plan.

But there are many open issues and the letter that I will give

you indicates what some of those open issues are and what we plan
78

to do during this study phase, this planning phase which is mandated by the legislation.

Subsequent to the planning phase, once we get approval to move

ahead, then we would get into, according to the legislation, again

an engineering phase, a design phase, a construction phase. Quite

frankly, engineering and design architecture are one phase and I

am recommending that we eliminate a separate milestone which

really does not make a whole lot of sense.

The question of how this is all reviewed at each step of the way

is important. If we are validating the existing design and making

changes as necessary for security and what other issues that leadership may determine needs to be incorporated or modified, the

schedule will be a lot shorter than if we start from ground zero on

the west front, which will not work, or another location yet that

some folks can bring up.

So it is a question of how loose the dart-throwing gets, and I

would like to have a very tight schedule so that we can move ahead

with something that is very security-related.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I was very favorably impressed

in Rules when we had that presentation. I forget when it was, but

it was last year some time. I thought that it is really a good start.

Of course, a lot was really, I think, learned in the killing that

took place in the Capitol, because the people at the magnetometers

had no chance. There was no ability to spot him coming in, no ability to see him draw his weapon.

Mr. HANTMAN. Exactly.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So those sight lines that you mentioned are

so important.

VISITOR ENTRANCES

Mr. HANTMAN. They are. In fact, Senator Warner had brought

that up with us while he still had his tenure as chair of that committee. One of the things we are looking at is, he had suggested

investigating how, for the Senate office buildings as a start, we

could take the magnetometers and move them outside the physical

structure, because if something blows up inside the building what

kind of structural damage would be done.

One of the things we are looking at doing is, he had tasked us

with on the Russell Building doing a vestibule adjacent to the main

stairs. We are looking for additional dollars on that to reprogram

the funds so that we can design that as the prototype or at least

the model of what we might be able to do at Dirksen and Hart to

also move some of these facilities outside the building. It is more

difficult there.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Particularly this building, if you notice you

can come in and you are right there. If anybody is packing anything, the people at the magnetometers have no chance.

Mr. HANTMAN. Part of that problem is going to come down to an

administrative decision by leadership: Are we going to direct all

members—not all members, but all visitors, to a single door where

they can be screened, and still have member doors, staff doors, so

that our business is not interrupted? If you are willing to take that

step, this makes sense. If you are not willing to take that step and
79

visitors can come into any door anyway, are we doing the right

thing? Does it really impact us?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. There was one solution which I hope does not

go forward, that we simply declare Capitol Hill a national park and

move.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think you are safe on that.

Senator BENNETT. Take the Senate and the House and build a

secure place for them entirely off Capitol Hill, and then just say,

we turn this over to the visitors entirely.

PARKING GARAGES

Mr. HANTMAN. One other point that I did not discuss was the

issue of parking garages. We had talked before about the legislative garage, the Russell Garage, and the pending improvement of

it, whether or not that garage should be expanded, things of that

nature.

In presenting our information again to Senator Warner at Rules

Committee, I think there was agreement that what we should look

at and what we are requesting is the ability to reprogram funds

from that legislative garage to take a look at the first increments

of a possible garage on what is called Site 724, Block 724, which

is just to the east of the police building.

A 500-car garage could be created on the eastern end of that

block as a first element, and if the Senate needed the spaces or we

decided that we do not want parking on Capitol Square or the

streets, we could ultimately build something like a 1,500-car garage 3 levels below grade on that site, with the provision that ultimately if the Senate needed more structures it could be built on

top of that. So we are hoping that we will get clearance so that we

can begin to look more seriously about that site as a possible garage.

There has been some discussion about possibly putting off the

restoration of the Russell Garage for a couple of years until that

is in place, so that we do not inconvenience the folks who are parking currently in the legislative garage.

FIRE SAFETY

Senator BENNETT. One last quick question. The status of the

smoke detector installation, the Senate side of the Capitol?

Mr. HANTMAN. Amita?

Sorry. Amita Poole is our Superintendent of the Capitol.

Ms. POOLE. We have just completed putting in the backbone for

the new fire alarm system and starting Monday of this coming

week we will be installing the smoke detectors in areas throughout

the Senate side where wiring is complete.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BENNETT. There will be some additional questions that

will be submitted for your response.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the hearing:]
80

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

REENGINEERING IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS

Question. In your testimony you indicate that significant re-engineering has already occurred in your agency and cite the consolidation of shops within both the

House and Senate office buildings which has reduced the number of supervisors.

What shops were consolidated and how many supervisors were reduced?

Answer. In the Capitol Building separate House and Senate side Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shops were consolidated. In both the Senate and

House Office Buildings the second and third shifts of the HVAC and Plumbing operations were consolidated. Grounds maintenance activities of the Library Buildings

and Grounds and Supreme Court were consolidated under the supervision of the

Capitol Grounds. These and other initiatives have reduced the number of supervisory positions from 306 in January 1998 to 300 as of March 1999.

K–9 FACILITY RENOVATION

Question. What is the status of the K–9 facility renovation?

Answer. The new K–9 facility is 95 percent complete. Remaining work includes

the installation of the heating and air-conditioning unit, installation of ductwork, installing the ceiling in the food preparation area, completion of exterior painting,

completing the installation of the kennel fencing, and site seeding. Barring any significant weather problems, the facility will be completed by April 2, 1999.

FORT MEADE PROJECT

Question. When will the Ft. Meade project be completed and available for occupancy?

Answer. Anticipating the approval of the pending reprogramming request, a contract award is planned for April 1999. Based on the April award, completion of the

first book storage module is scheduled for July of 2000.

AOC FINANCIAL AND BUDGET STATUS REPORTS

Question. The Architect of the Capital (AOC) has yet to provide certain basic reports, such as quarterly financial and budget status reports, that the Committee has

requested over the past several years. Why hasn’t the AOC responded to these requests? How and when will the AOC provide better financial reports to the committee? When does the AOC plan to be fully responsive to this request for financial

and budget status reports? What plans does the AOC have to provide this type of

information while it is using its interim financial management system? Does the

AOC plan to reconcile this information to its budget submission?

Answer. With the implementation of the new Financial Management System, the

AOC expects to fully comply with the Committee’s request for quarterly financial

statements and budget status reports and to provide a reconciliation of the information reflected on these reports with the budget submission. We are using GAO’s

guidance to develop the specific requirements for the requested reports in our Request For Proposal (RFP) process and we will confirm the requirement with the

Committee staff prior to issuing the RFP. With the new system we also expect to

be more responsive to any new requests for information since the new system will

contain modern report writing tools.

For the interim period, prior to the implementation of the new FMS, we plan to

prepare the requested budget status reports and the reconciliations with the budget

submission by preparing spreadsheet based reports containing data from several

sources. Upon confirming the reporting requirements with GAO and the Committee

over the next few weeks, we will be able to develop the spreadsheets and take steps

to begin capturing any currently unavailable required information. We plan to come

to closure on this issue, and have an agreed to interim solution by the end of April,

1999.

We apologize for not being as responsive as necessary on this issue and we will

work hard towards meeting your reporting requests as quickly as possible. The AOC

spent several months in early 1998 working with the GAO to create the requested

reports based on the reports that the GAO provides the Senate. We had originally

created a Budget Status Report to address this need. However, this report has been

determined to be inadequate for the Committee’s needs due to the combining of current and prior year financial information and the lack of project status information.
81

ANNUAL AND MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS

Question. What is the total number of annual projects funded in fiscal year 1999?

What number of those projects have been started? What number have been completed?

Answer. A total of 55 annual projects were funded in fiscal year 1999. All of the

projects are in various stages of either construction, design or specification development, or procurement. At this time, none of the projects are considered 100 percent

complete.

Question. What is the total number of multi-year projects that the AOC currently

has underway? How many of those projects have been started?

Answer. The AOC has 98 multi-year projects currently underway and the majority

are under construction. Of the 98 projects, 21 have not had funds obligated against

them. Nineteen of the 21 projects are either in design or specification development,

procurement, or are awaiting client or oversight approval to proceed.

Y2K PROGRAM

Question. What has been spent to date on your Y2K program, and what was requested in your 2000 budget? Answer. The AOC has spent a total of $2,537,000 on Y2K programs. The significant projects that funds have been spent on include the replacement of the accounting system, upgrading the procurement system, replacement of the work order system and replacement of noncompliant personal computers. It is anticipated that an

additional $103,000 will be spent on Y2K system initiatives from currently available

funds. The AOC is requesting $1,444,000 from funds appropriated to the General

Accounting Office for Y2K compliance and contingency planning activities.

SENATE RESTAURANTS

Question. Last year you predicted that the Senate restaurants would be $200,000

in the black in 1998 and $600,000 in the black in 1999. What was the financial balance in 1998 and what do you currently project for 1999 and 2000?

Answer. The year end financial statements for fiscal year 1998 (which included

appropriated funds and revolving funds) for the Senate Restaurants indicates a loss

of $607,865. Included in this loss is the one time expense for the buyout of $753,282.

This expense includes approximately $87,300 in terminal leave which would not

have been charged as well as an increase in replacement labor (approximately

$70,500) while the Restaurant was being reorganized. The net loss would have been

approximately $450,100.

As we have continually noted with the Architect of the Capitol’s Re-engineering

Plan, the savings from the buyouts offered are not realized until the following year.

Currently, the Senate Restaurants project a profit of $261,000 for 1999. Included

in the operating expenses is the repayment of a contingent fund loan of $275,000

provided to cover the balance of buyout payments which occurred in fiscal year

1999.

This profit is based on the current operating configuration of the Restaurants. We

are actively working with the Rules Committee to finalize the services offered within the Restaurants and only a positive impact on the financial statements is

planned.

RUSSELL COURTYARD BOXWOODS

Question. Please explain why the English Boxwood plants in the Russell Courtyard were destroyed. What are your plans for replanting the area where the Boxwoods were removed? What are your plans for the English Boxwood’s that remain

in the Russell Courtyard?

Answer. The boxwoods have overgrown the walkways, impeding the passageways

for pedestrians, and are in need of replacement. In fact, a project was included in

the AOC’s fiscal year 1998 budget request to Renovate and Restore the Russell

Courtyard which included the replacement of the overgrown boxwoods with smaller

ones. This project was actually funded by a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming but

placed on hold because of the then proposed use of the Courtyard. While the boxwoods were removed to make way for constructing a building that will provide temporary ‘‘swing space’’ for various Senate committees during renovation of the Dirksen Building, they were slated for removal and replacement in any event. We have

looked at the option of heavy pruning to restore pedestrian access to the walkways,

but the appearance of the boxwoods would be ruined.

Accordingly, after the ‘‘swing space’’ facility is demolished, we plan to remove the

remaining boxwoods and replace them all with appropriately-sized three to four foot
82

high boxwoods, placed six feet away from the edges of the walks. Appropriate annual maintenance pruning will assure that the boxwoods’ growth is controlled in an

aesthetic manner. This approach will restore the beauty of the courtyard’s plantings

while improving pedestrian access to the walkways.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Question. What year will financial statements be available for a full audit?

Answer. FMS is scheduled to be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2001. Once

FMS is implemented auditable financial statements will be available on a monthly

accounting period basis. Since FMS is being implemented during the end of fiscal

year 2001, the first full fiscal year for being able to produce an auditable financial

statement from FMS is fiscal year 2002.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Question. Arthur Andersen has spent five months studying AOC’s financial management system requirements and reviewing financial software packages available

on the GSA schedule. Although not subject to the Federal Financial Management

Improvement Act (FFMIA), will the AOC financial systems comply?

Answer. Yes, the financial management system that is purchased and implemented by the AOC will comply with Federal financial management systems requirements applicable to Federal accounting standards and the Standard General

Ledger (SGL) at the transaction level as required by FFMIA. The AOC considers

the requirement for the system to be compliant with Federal standards as the most

important criteria for selecting a financial software package. The AOC is considering

only the systems offered by the eleven vendors on the GSA Financial Management

System Software (FMSS) schedule since all of these systems have been certified by

GSA as being compliant with Federal financial standards. In addition, the AOC

plans to implement the new system with no software modifications, allowing easier

migrations to future federally mandated software upgrades.

Question. Will the purchase of your financial management system require new

hardware? If so, have you done a cost benefit analysis? How much funding will be

required?

Answer. The AOC’s Business Process Re-engineering plan calls for the agency to

move all existing applications and the planned integrated financial, procurement,

human and facilities management systems to a Unix/Oracle based platform. This

platform was selected because of its well documented reliability, scalability, and performance. The Information Resource Management (IRM) division has determined

that the Unix/Oracle platform is a prudent investment to service all applications.

Funding of the new Unix/Oracle environment is forecasted at $4.01 million over the

next 5 years. The IRM fiscal year 2000 operating budget request includes the first

increment of $790,000. Below are the projected costs by fiscal year:

Fiscal year:

2000 ........................................................................................................... $790,000

2001 ........................................................................................................... 855,000

2002 ........................................................................................................... 785,000

2003 ........................................................................................................... 770,000

2004 ........................................................................................................... 810,000

Question. Do the financial packages recommended by Arthur Andersen also meet

the AOC’s operational requirements, such as facilities management, project tracking

and costing?

Answer. The focus of the Arthur Andersen analysis was on the AOC’s core financial management requirements, inventory requirements and procurement analysis.

The requirements for facilities management and project tracking/costing was limited

to the financial related requirements rather than the operational requirements. It

was assumed that the operational requirements for facilities management and

project tracking would be performed in a separate system or a module outside the

core financial system. The analysis indicated if a vendor offered a facilities management module or a project tracking module, but there was no evaluation performed

on whether these modules met AOC operational requirements in these areas.

Question. You are purchasing a financial management system, but your requirements also include procurement capabilities which are nonfinancial in nature. What

weight do you put on your financial requirements as opposed to your miscellaneous

requirements? Will you select a less desirable financial system because of these

other requirements? If not, how will you distinguish and rate each requirement?

Answer. The financial requirements will carry the most weight in the selection

of a financial management system for the AOC while the procurement requirements
83

will carry very little weight in the selection process. The actual criteria that will

be used to evaluate vendor proposals is currently under development and will be

completed prior to issuing the Request for Proposal. In order to ensure that we do

not select a less desirable system, we will coordinate the evaluation criteria with

the GAO. Additionally, the GAO is going to provide staff assistance throughout the

evaluation and implementation of FMS. Although still under development, the criteria that are expected to carry the most weight in the selection of a financial package are as follows: Compliant with Federal financial standards; operates in a 3-

tiered client server environment; contains inventory and project functionality; provides easy access to information; provides modern workflow capabilities; and vendor

track record in implementing the software.

The AOC desires to select a modern system that is compliant with Federal financial standards, can be easily integrated with other AOC systems and will be supported by the vendor in the long term.

Question. Will these systems produce the reports required by the Senate Appropriations Committee?

Answer. The specifications for the reports required by the Senate Appropriations

Committee will be included in the Statement of Work for the procurement and implementation of the Financial Management System. These reports will be available

from FMS when FMS is implemented in late fiscal year 2001. In addition, the AOC

plans to implement a user friendly reporting tool to allow easy access to information

and the production of ad-hoc reports.

Question. Do the vendors of these systems certify that they are Y2K compliant?

Answer. The AOC is considering only the financial management systems that are

certified by GSA as being compliant with the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) requirements. The JFMIP technical requirements include

requirements for the system to be Y2K compliant. In addition, the AOC will include

a requirement in the Statement of Work that all date fields contain a four character

year.

Question. Do these systems have good funds control over project and job costs?

How will the funds control portion of your financial system work?

Answer. The AOC is considering only the financial management systems that are

certified by GSA as being compliant with JFMIP requirements. The JFMIP requirements include funds control requirements to ensure the systems provide basic funding controls over commitments, obligations, and expenditures. The AOC will include

additional funds control requirements in the Statement of Work to provide for the

capability to establish project and sub-project budgets that are in addition to the

appropriation budgets. The AOC expects to implement the Financial Management

System with up to four levels of appropriation funds control with the levels differentiated by combinations of fund codes, program codes, organization codes, project

codes and object codes. The AOC expects to implement two levels of project funds

control to budget by project phase and the activities within a project phase.

Question. Did your contractor require live demonstrations from each vendor in a

production environment? If not, how could your contractor determine what vendor

had the best system?

Answer. The Arthur Andersen report compared the AOC’s stated requirements to

the software packages offered by vendors on the GSA FMSS Schedule. The purpose

of the analysis was to identify the packages that potentially meet AOC’s stated

needs. Three vendors were recommended, based on the ‘‘down-select’’ criteria provided by the AOC. An additional vendor was recommended because of being the historical market leader. The analysis did not include live demonstrations from the

vendors. During the proposal process, the AOC will require the vendors to perform

Operational Capabilities Demonstrations (OCD’s) in a technical environment similar

to AOC’s environment. The detailed script for the OCD will be prepared by the FMS

Project Director and coordinated with GAO. The results of the OCD will weigh heavily in the selection of a vendor.

Question. Do these systems meet AOC business needs? If not, what amount of

customization will be necessary, and what are the estimated costs?

Answer. The Arthur Andersen report indicated that all 9 vendors on the GSA

FMSS Schedule met AOC’s core financial management requirements. The report

also indicated that 3 vendors potentially meet AOC’s inventory and procurement requirements in addition to the core financial management requirements. The AOC

plans to implement the core financial system with no customization. No unique AOC

financial requirements have been identified that would require customization of a

core financial package. Whether the software packages meet all of the AOC’s inventory and procurement needs will be determined during the procurement process. If

the software packages perform the typical inventory and Federal procurement functions, there should be no need to perform customization. The fiscal year 2000 budget
84

request for the implementation of a Financial Management System does not include

any funding for customization.

Question. Has the AOC considered having another Legislative Branch agency

cross service its financial operations instead of implementing its own financial system? Did you solicit bids from other Legislative/Executive agencies to cross service

the AOC? How do you know that buying and implementing your own system is more

cost beneficial than cross servicing?

Answer. The AOC considered having another Legislative Branch agency cross

service its financial operations instead of implementing a new financial system.

Most of the Legislative Branch agencies are currently operating their financial systems in a main-frame environment with software that is near the end of its life

cycle. The AOC did not want to incur significant implementation costs migrating to

an older system, and then have to incur the costs again in a few years when the

cross servicing agency migrated to a more modern system.

Question. How many employees are devoted full time to the financial management

system acquisition and implementation project? Have you budgeted for the increased financial management system staff in the current year? How much will this

staff cost in the out years?

Answer. Currently, there is a project director assigned full time to the project. Six

additional staff will be hired gradually over the next 4–9 months in order to have

the full project team on board when the software is purchased. Two of the additional

staff are planned to be hired in July 1999, with the remaining coming on board in

the first 3 months of fiscal year 2000. The cost of the increase in staff for fiscal year

1999 is included in our budget. The cost of the staff in the initial out years is estimated at $400,000 per year. After the complete implementation of the system, the

staff will be reduced to the resources required to maintain the system.

Question. How confident are you with your procurement and implementation

schedule for your financial management system?

Answer. The AOC’s current procurement schedule of purchasing a system by the

end of calendar year 1999 is considered aggressive. Depending on the number of

proposals received and ‘‘down-selected’’ additional time may be necessary to evaluate

the vendor proposals, and to conduct Operational Capabilities Demonstrations for

each package under consideration.

The AOC is confident in the implementation schedule of beginning production operations by the end of fiscal year 2001 as long as the procurement stays on schedule.

A significant delay in the procurement would affect the implementation date.

Question. What business practices will you change as a result of implementing a

new financial system? What procedures/policy changes will you implement?

Answer. The financial system that is purchased by the AOC is expected to provide

the configuration flexibility to allow the AOC to continue its current business practices if desired. However, it is expected that the increase in functionality provided

by the new system will lead to improvement of certain business practices. The actual changes that will occur will be determined during the configuration sessions

with user groups during the beginning stages of the implementation. In order to

limit the impact on users, the AOC may pursue implementing certain business process changes using a phased approach after the initial implementation. An example

of a business process that will be changed is the ‘‘requisition for goods and services’’

process. The requisition process will be improved to transform a paper intensive

process to a fully electronic process.

Question. What staff changes, if any, do you believe will be necessary to implement and operate your new financial management system? How much will you save

in staff years once you have automated your existing procedures?

Answer. We have determined that additional staff of 6 people (plus a project director) is required to implement the Financial Management System. This level of staff

assumes an implementation where considerable contractor support is utilized. The

amount of staff required to maintain the system after it is implemented has not

been determined, but it is expected to be less than the AOC staff required to implement the system.

The implementation of a new Financial Management System is not expected to

affect current staffing requirements in the AOC except in the Accounting Division.

The Accounting Division may require 1–2 additional professional staff because of the

increase in workload required to maintain a standard general ledger, produce financial reports and perform reconciliations.

The implementation of a new financial management system is not expected to

save staff years. Any savings realized through the automation of manual processes

will be offset by additional time spent on value added processes, such as providing

better customer service or performing strategic analysis.
85

Question. Have you done a skills requirement analysis to determine if existing

staff will have the necessary skills to operate in a new automated environment? If

so, what did that analysis reveal?

Answer. A skills analysis to determine if existing staff have the necessary skills

required by the new system has been performed for the technical staff, but not for

the functional staff. The analysis for the functional staff is planned to be performed

during this calendar year prior to the purchasing of the financial management system. Since the initial implementation of FMS will most likely involve only the current financial system users, it is assumed that the users will have the basic skills

to operate an automated system. However, the AOC does plan to evaluate the users

ability to operate in a ‘‘windows and mouse’’ environment, and if necessary have

users attend training classes in these areas. In addition, the AOC will also determine if the complexity of the new system requires higher level employees such as

GS–0510 accountants rather than GS–0525 accounting technicians.

The AOC has determined that its technical staff lacks the required skills to operate in the new technical environment. In order to obtain the necessary skills, the

AOC is in the process of hiring staff experienced in the new technology and is sending current staff to training. It is expected that the technical staff will have 6

months experience in the new technical environment by the time the financial management package is purchased. The AOC technical staff is then expected to receive

on-the-job training from the contractor during the implementation of the system.

Question. We recommended that you follow GAO guidance that your financial system project director report directly to the Architect. However, he reports to the CFO.

What is your rationale for not accepting the GAO recommendation?

Answer. The AOC established the organization structure for the financial system

project director to report to the CFO since this is the reporting relationship typically

used by Federal agencies. Although the AOC is not covered by the CFO Act of 1990,

the act specifies that the agency CFO should oversee all financial management activities including the ‘‘development and maintenance of an integrated agency accounting and financial management system’’.

In order to partially comply with the GAO recommendation that the financial system project director report directly to the Architect, the Architect has issued a Delegation of Authority making the financial system project director directly responsible

for the proper implementation of the financial management system. The financial

management system project director will continue to report to the CFO, but will

meet with the Architect on a weekly basis to discuss the project status and outstanding issues relative to the implementation of the new system. The financial system project director will be the primary contact of the Architect for all financial system implementation and integration matters.

Question. You intend to interface some of your present systems with the new financial management system. What systems will that be and how much will it cost

to develop interfaces? When do you anticipate having those interfaces completed?

Answer. The new financial management system will interface with the following

systems: Human Resource System (currently the USDA payroll system); Computer

Assisted Facilities Management System (CAFM); and Project Tracking System.

The interface with the existing payroll system will be implemented along with the

initial implementation of the financial system by the end of fiscal year 2001. A preliminary estimate of $160,000 (1,280 hours) has been developed for contractor support in the design, coding and testing of the payroll interface. This estimate assumes the interface will be similar to the current interface which updates the financial system with payroll and benefit costs on a bi-weekly basis. The estimate does

not include any additional costs that may be charged to the AOC by the USDA for

changes in the data format.

Estimates for the development of interfaces with the CAFM system and the

Project Tracking System have not been developed. The interfaces to these systems

are expected to be implemented during the latter stages of the implementation towards the end of fiscal year 2003. The CAFM system is currently in the beginning

stages of implementation at the AOC and the current project tracking system may

be replaced prior to the end of fiscal year 2003. The cost estimates for the CAFM

and Project Tracking interfaces will be developed by the end of fiscal year 2000 and

included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Question. Will the AOC seek funding in the future to enhance existing non-financial systems? If so, how much, when, and for what systems?

Answer. The following table reflects the AOC’s fiscal year 2000 budget request

and future fiscal year requests for non-financial system installations. These systems

include a Human Resources system, the continuation of the installation of the Computer Aided Facilities Management (CAFM) system, and the upgrade and continued

expansion of the agencies computer network. The five year total is $12,282,000. The
86

Network Installation and Upgrade project will support all current system and e-mail

applications as well as the new or expanded Financial Management, Human Resources and CAFM systems.

[In thousand of dollars]

System

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Human Resources ............................................ 3,612 800 800 800 800

CAFM ................................................................ 350 350 350 ................ ................

Network Installation & Upgrade ...................... 1,660 490 390 1,340 540

Total .................................................... 5,622 1,640 1,540 2,140 1,340

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It has been very informative. We appreciate your responsiveness and congratulate you on the progress

that you have made.

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(87)

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD–116, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ROTH, VICE CHAIRMAN

ACCOMPANIED BY LINDY L. PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. The subcommittee will come to order.

We welcome you to our second hearing on the fiscal year 2000

budget for the legislative branch of Government. We have three

panels testifying this morning: the Joint Committee on Taxation,

the Joint Economic Committee, and the Office of Compliance.

Our first witness will be Senator Bill Roth on behalf of the Joint

Committee on Taxation, joined by Lindy Paull, the Chief of Staff

of the Joint Committee. The budget request is for $6,256,000 for

fiscal year 2000. This includes a cost-of-living adjustment for staff

and a slight increase of $67,000 for non-personnel expenses.

Senator Feinstein, we welcome you. You braved your way

through the storm as the rest of us did, and we are honored that

you are here. Do you have any opening statement?

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, except to welcome the distinguished Senator to our esteemed subcommittee.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to hearing

from you.

Senator ROTH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today before

the subcommittee on behalf of the fiscal year 2000 appropriation

request for the Joint Committee on Taxation.

As you well know, Bill Archer and I have submitted a written

statement, and I ask that this written statement be made part of

the written record.

Senator BENNETT. Without objection.
88

Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a couple of brief

points regarding this appropriation request. Actually you have

touched on them already, but I will review them once more.

As you said, the Joint Committee is requesting an appropriation

for fiscal year 2000 of $6,256,000. This represents a $290,600 increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. This is a 4.87 percent increase. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, $223,000 of this

amount will be allocated to cost-of-living increases for personnel expenses, and the remaining $67,000 will be allocated to proposed increases in non-personnel expenses.

Mr. Chairman, increased responsibilities have been assigned to

the Joint Committee under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act

that was passed last summer. The Joint Committee estimated during consideration of the IRS Reform Act that these additional responsibilities would require approximately $290,000 of additional

staff resources annually.

The Joint Committee is requesting 1.5 more FTE’s for fiscal year

2000 to hire additional staff economists. These economists will

work on revenue estimates so that the Joint Committee is able to

respond to more Member requests. I think Lindy said we are responding roughly in the 80’s.

Ms. PAULL. Right, 80 percent.

Senator ROTH. 80 percent.

In addition, the additional employees will allow the Joint Committee to devote more staff resources to the effort to develop macroeconomic estimating capability. I think that is a very important development.

Senator FEINSTEIN. You did say macro.

Senator ROTH. Yes, ma’am. And I think they are making some

real progress, but they have a ways to go yet.

REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM

Under the IRS Reform Act, the Joint Committee is required to

report at least once each Congress to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee on the overall

state of the Federal tax system and to make specific recommendations for changes to the tax laws. The IRS Reform Act provided

that this report is to be done subject to amounts being specifically

appropriated to the Joint Committee for this purpose.

The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request does not contain any

amount for this purpose. If the subcommittee decides to fund this

added responsibility, the Joint Committee estimates an additional

annual appropriation of $200,000 and three additional FTE’s would

be required.

Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein, I want to thank the subcommittee for its continued recognition of the important role the

Joint Committee plays in the development of revenue legislation.

I hope that the subcommittee will continue to support the operation of the Joint Committee for fiscal year 2000.
89

PREPARED STATEMENT

I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

If I do not know the answer, which will probably be the case, I will

call on Lindy.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BILL ARCHER AND SENATOR BILL ROTH

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this written testimony to

the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Senate Committee on Appropriations

on behalf of the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request for the Joint Committee on

Taxation (the ‘‘Joint Committee’’).

The funding we are requesting for the Joint Committee on Taxation represents

the minimum amount necessary to finance the operations of the Joint Committee

for fiscal year 2000. The Joint Committee provides essential services to the Congress

that are not duplicated by any other Congressional or Executive Branch office. Failure to provide the requested funding will jeopardize the ability of the Joint Committee to provide these necessary services.

We want to thank the Subcommittee for its continued recognition of the important

role that the Joint Committee plays in the development of revenue legislation. We

are pleased that the Subcommittee has repeatedly acknowledged the needs of the

Joint Committee, and we hope that the Subcommittee will continue to support the

operations of the Joint Committee for fiscal year 2000.

Key points relating to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request are as follows:

—The Joint Committee is requesting an appropriation for fiscal year 2000 of $6,256,000, an increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $290,600.

This represents a 4.87 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.

$223,000 of this amount will be allocated to cost-of-living increases for personnel expenses and the remaining $67,600 will be allocated to proposed increases in nonpersonnel expenses. —The Joint Committee’s appropriation for fiscal year 1999 of $5,965,400 is less than the $6,019,000 appropriated to the Joint Committee for fiscal year 1995.

Despite this reduction in the Joint Committee’s appropriation, increased responsibilities have been assigned to the Joint Committee under the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the ‘‘IRS Reform Act’’). The

Joint Committee estimated during consideration of the IRS Reform Act that

these additional responsibilities would require approximately $290,000 of additional staff resources annually.

—The Joint Committee is requesting an additional 1.5 FTEs for fiscal year 2000

to hire additional staff economists. These economists will assist in the preparation of revenue estimates so that the Joint Committee is able to respond to

more Member requests. In addition, the additional FTEs will enable the Joint

Committee to devote more staff resources to the effort to develop macroeconomic

estimating capability.

—Under section 4002(a) of the IRS Reform Act, subject to amounts being specifically appropriated for this purpose, the Joint Committee is required to report

at least once each Congress to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House

Committee on Ways and Means on the overall state of the Federal tax system,

together with recommendations with respect to possible simplification proposals

and other matters relating to the administration of the Federal tax system. We

leave to the Subcommittee’s discretion whether to appropriate additional

amounts to the Joint Committee for this purpose for fiscal year 2000. The Joint

Committee estimates that this additional responsibility would require an additional annual appropriation of $200,000 and 3 FTE’s.

Additional details relating to this appropriation request are provided below.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION REQUEST

The following summarizes the Joint Committee’s appropriation request for fiscal

year 2000:

Personnel Compensation ................................................................................. $5,656,000

Nonpersonnel Funding:

Travel ........................................................................................................ 12,000

Rent, communications, and utilities ....................................................... 33,000

Printing ..................................................................................................... ..................
90

Other services ........................................................................................... 29,000

Supplies and materials ............................................................................ 154,000

Equipment ................................................................................................. 277,000

Total fiscal year 2000 request .............................................................. 6,256,000

DETAILS OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION REQUEST

Personnel Expenses

Cost-of-living.—A 3.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar year 1999 and

a 4.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment for calendar year 2000 are requested. This

request would increase the appropriation for personnel expenses for fiscal year 2000

by $223,000 over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.

Additional FTEs.—An increase of 1.5 additional FTEs is requested for the Joint

Committee for fiscal year 2000. These additional FTEs would be used to hire additional Joint Committee staff economists to assist in the preparation of revenue estimates to respond to Member requests. These additional FTEs would not only enable

the Joint Committee to respond to more Member requests, but would also allow the

Joint Committee to devote additional resources to the effort to develop the capability

to incorporate macroeconomic effects in Joint Committee revenue estimates for

major tax legislation.

Further, increased responsibilities have been assigned to the Joint Committee as

a result of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the

‘‘IRS Reform Act’’). Under the IRS Reform Act, the Joint Committee is required to

prepare a complexity analysis of all revenue provisions of widespread applicability

to individuals and small businesses. In addition, the IRS Reform Act requires the

Joint Committee to provide staffing and an annual report in connection with annual

joint hearings of six Congressional committees on the operations of the Internal

Revenue Service. These hearings will occur during calendar years 1999 through

2003. Finally, the IRS Reform Act mandated that the Joint Committee conduct a

study of the present-law protections relating to disclosure of tax returns and tax return information. This study is due January 22, 2000, which will require the Joint

Committee to expend personnel resources on this effort during a portion of fiscal

year 2000. These additional responsibilities will place a significant drain on the personnel resources of the Joint Committee. During consideration of the IRS Reform

Act, the Joint Committee estimated that these added responsibilities would require

approximately $290,000 of personnel resources per year.

No additional appropriation is requested to fund these additional FTEs. The FTEs

can be funded out of the requested personnel appropriation through reclassification

of certain Joint Committee positions and the replacement of departing higher paid

employees with entry level professional staff.

If the Subcommittee approves these additional FTE’s, the Joint Committee’s staffing level of 65 FTEs would be less than the level of FTE’s authorized for the Joint

Committee in any fiscal year between 1980 and 1996.

Nonpersonnel Expenses

In general.—An increase of $67,600 is requested for fiscal year 2000 relative to

the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. In addition, the Joint Committee’s expenses in

various categories have been reallocated to reflect more accurately the actual expenses that are anticipated in these categories.

Rent, communications, and utilities.—The Joint Committee request proposes to re- allocate $55,000 from this category to other categories for fiscal year 2000. The

amount requested in this category for fiscal year 2000 represents an accurate estimate of the actual expenses that the Joint Committee will incur.

Other services.—It is requested that $29,000 be reallocated to this category from

other categories for fiscal year 2000. The increase in this category is attributable

to projected increased needs of the Joint Committee to secure consulting services in

connection with the efforts to develop macroeconomic estimating capabilities. This

project requires substantial resources. In addition to the work of Joint Committee

staff, it is necessary for the Joint Committee to contract with macroeconomic forecasting firms to assist in the development of economic models that will permit the

calculation of such macroeconomic effects.

Further, the needs of the Members for immediate responses to requests for revenue estimates and the substantial volume of requests that the Joint Committee

staff receives each year places limitations on the ability of the Joint Committee staff

to perform certain work necessary for the preparation of revenue estimates. To perform efficiently, the Joint Committee staff has found it necessary to contract from

time to time with certain private sector organizations to do work that the Joint

Committee staff does not have the time or the resources to do otherwise.
91

Finally, the Joint Committee may find it necessary during fiscal year 2000 to contract for consultant services in connection with Joint Committee plans to update its

document tracking system software and hardware; this project is discussed more

fully in the equipment category below.

Supplies and materials.—It is requested that $24,000 be reallocated to this category from other categories for fiscal year 2000. The requested increase in this category is attributable to the cost of purchasing new on-line information resources for

the use of the Joint Committee professional staff. It is essential that the Joint Committee staff have available the most sophisticated research tools available for tax

professionals. This expense ensures that the Joint Committee staff has access to the

same resources that private sector tax lawyers and economists utilize on a daily

basis. The amount requested for fiscal year 2000 in this category reflects a relatively

modest increase over the actual expenses for fiscal year 1998; the amount allocated

to this category for fiscal year 1999 is below anticipated actual expenses.

Equipment.—An increase of $69,600 is requested for fiscal year 2000 over fiscal

year 1999 for the purchases of new equipment. Anticipated expenses in this category

include $60,000 for hardware and software maintenance; $50,000 for Xerox maintenance and usage costs; and $150,000 for the purchase of document scanners, CD–

ROM writers, and other storage for expansions of the Joint Committee’s document

tracking system.

In 1994, the Joint Committee implemented a computerized data base to track

Member requests. The Joint Committee hopes to begin upgrades to this data base

system during fiscal 1999 that will lead to the purchase of computer hardware (such

as scanners) and software during fiscal year 2000 to implement these upgrades.

Once the upgrades are complete, the Joint Committee will have the capability of

maintaining a complete electronic record of each request received from a Member

of Congress and to determine at any time the status of such request.

The purchase of equipment represents the single largest item of nonpersonnel expenses for the Joint Committee. The large volume of documents that the Joint Committee is required to produce during the legislative process requires the use of sophisticated and technologically advanced computer and reproduction equipment. The

Joint Committee staff finds it necessary to upgrade computer software, hardware,

and reproduction machines frequently to ensure that Members receive adequate

service.

REVIEW OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OPERATIONS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1998

Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the Joint Committee staff for calendar year 1998. This included work on Committee and Conference Reports (Statements of Managers) for the revenue-related legislation considered by the House Committee on Ways and Means and/or the Senate Committee on

Finance and conference action on revenue-related legislation. A list of these committee and conference reports is contained in Attachment A.

Tax legislative reports

Tax legislative reports worked on by the Joint Committee staff relating to legislation enacted in 1998 included:

—Extension and modification of Highway Trust Fund tax provisions (revenue title

in H.R. 2400, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century).

—Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (H.R. 2676),

which included major revisions of numerous IRS administration, taxpayer compliance and taxpayer rights provisions, revenue offsets, and technical corrections to recent tax legislation.

—Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 (revenue provisions of H.R. 4328,

the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,

1999).

—Internet Tax Freedom Act (S. 442 as reported by the Finance Committee, included in the conference report for H.R. 4328).

The Joint Committee staff also worked on several other reports on tax legislation

considered by the tax-writing committees in 1998 but not enacted. These included

the following areas of tax legislation (also listed in Attachment A):

—H.R. 1432 (revenue-offset provision relating to the employer deduction for severance pay in the African Growth and Opportunity Act), which was passed by the

House.

—H.R. 3249 (Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act), which was passed by

the House.

—H.R. 4250 (revenue-offset provisions in the Patient Protection Act of 1998),

which was passed by the House.

—H.R. 4579 (Tax Relief Act of 1998), which was passed by the House.
92

—H.R. 4738 (Extension of Expiring Provisions and Other Tax Relief), which was

passed by the House.

—S. 1133 (Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act), which was reported by

the Finance Committee and passed by the Senate as an amendment to H.R.

2646 (see below).

—H.R. 2646 (Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998), the conference report for which was passed by the House and the Senate in 1998 but

vetoed by the President.

—S. 1415 (Tobacco Settlement), which was reported by the Finance Committee

and considered by the Senate.

JCT staff publications

In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the Joint Committee

staff published 82 documents during 1998, including pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and markups and conference action (see Attachment B). Included in these documents was the General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in 1998, a 320-page comprehensive explanation of tax legislation

enacted in 1998, and also a Summary of Revenue Provisions Contained in Legislation Enacted During the 105th Congress.

The 1998 staff publications included the Joint Committee staff’s annual report on

estimates of Federal tax expenditures (for fiscal years 1999–2003). Other publications included a staff study on tax amnesty proposals, analysis of proposals for restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service, analysis of individual effective marginal tax rates, proposals to reduce the marriage tax penalty, revenue provisions

contained in the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget, and issues relating to estate

and gift taxes, the individual alternative minimum tax, capital gains, tax incentives

for savings, tax provisions relating to health care and qualified pension plans, and

tax complexity for small business.

JCT staff investigations and refund review

During 1998, the Joint Committee staff continued its investigation (started in

1997) of whether the Internal Revenue Service’s (‘‘IRS’’) selection of tax-exempt organizations (Code secs. 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)) and individuals associated with such

organizations for audit has been politically motivated, including an analysis of the

selection of such tax-exempt organizations for audit for reasons related to their alleged political or lobbying activities. This investigation represents an important exercise of the Joint Committee’s statutorily prescribed duty of oversight of the administration of the Federal tax system.

An on-going, 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

$1,000,000. The Joint Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and

makes comments or recommendations with respect to the proposal refund case to

the IRS. The Joint Committee is moving from a calendar year to fiscal year reporting of refund activity. Therefore, statistics for 1998 contained in Attachment E are

presented for the period January through September. During this period of 1998,

the Joint Committee refund staff reviewed 439 cases involving $4.8 billion in proposed refunds. The Joint Committee staff raised concerns in 55 cases (or approximately 12.9 percent of the cases). Errors identified by the Joint Committee staff produced a net reduction in refunds of $20.4 million in 1998, as compared to $14.3 million in 1997. The average annual reduction in refunds for the last 8 years is $11.1

million.

Revenue estimates and related analysis

Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee’s revenue estimating activity for calendar year 1998. The Joint Committee received 2,729 requests

for revenue estimates during 1998, the largest number of requests ever received in

a single year. These requests represent a 32 percent increase in the number of requests over 1997. The Joint Committee staff disposed of 85 percent of the requests

received.

Since 1985, when data on revenue estimate requests was first compiled, the number of requests received annually has increased by 684 percent.

ANTICIPATED WORKLOAD OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR

1999

During 1999, the Joint Committee’s workload will be at least equivalent to what

it has been in the past several years. The Joint Committee will be extensively involved in legislative proposals to provide broad-based tax relief to the American tax-
93

payers, expiring tax provisions, and social security reform. 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, beginning in 1999, the Joint

Committee will assume new responsibilities under the IRS Reform Act. The Joint

Committee staff is now required to prepare a complexity analysis for inclusion in

Committee and Conference reports for all revenue legislation. In addition, the Joint

Committee staff is required under the IRS Reform Act to conduct two studies during

1999. The first study relates to the present-law system of penalties and interest and

is required to be completed by July 22, 1999. The second study relates to the rules

governing disclosure of tax return information and is due by January 22, 2000. Finally, the Joint Committee is required to prepare materials for the use of the Congress in connection with joint hearings relating to the operations of the Internal

Revenue Service that will occur during calendar years 1999–2003. These additional

responsibilities will require significant staff resources.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will approve the appropriation request of the

Joint Committee on Taxation. We believe that this request is the minimum amount

necessary to fund the operations of the Joint Committee during fiscal year 2000.

These resources will not only fund the day-to-day operations of the Joint Committee

staff, but will also be used to continue our efforts to develop macroeconomic estimating capabilities and to perform the additional responsibilities of the Joint Committee mandated by the IRS Reform Act. If the requested funding is not provided,

then difficult decisions will be required concerning what staff activities can and

should be funded. We hope that this Subcommittee will not force the Joint Committee to make these decisions.

Mr. Chairman, we recognize fully the budgetary constraints that make your work

so difficult. At the same time, we hope that you will appreciate the important role

the Joint Committee on Taxation plays in the analysis and development of tax legislation. We firmly believe that the nonpartisan technical tax experts on the Joint

Committee staff provide a service to the Congress that is not and cannot be duplicated by any other Congressional office. Their work every year proves this.

We respectfully urge the Members of the Subcommittee to respond favorably to

the Joint Committee’s funding request for fiscal year 2000.

ATTACHMENT A.—1998 TAX-RELATED LEGISLATIVE REPORTS WORKED ON BY THE

STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

A. TAX COMMITTEE REPORT EXPLANATIONS

H.R. 1432 (African Growth and Opportunity Act). H. Rept. 105–423, Part 2.

(House Ways and Means Committee report on revenue provision for the bill relating

to employer deduction for severance pay).

H.R. 2400 (Surface Transportation Revenue Act of 1998). H. Rept. 105–467, Part

3. (House Ways and Means Committee report on extension and modification of

Highway Trust Fund tax provisions).

H.R. 2676 (Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998). S.

Rept 105–174. (Senate Finance Committee report on IRS restructuring provisions

and tax technical corrections).

H.R. 3249 (Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act). H. Rept. 105–625, Part

2. (House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill).

H.R. 4250 (Patient Protection Act of 1998). Technical explanation of tax provisions

for House Floor consideration of the bill (see JCX–56–98).

H.R. 4579 (Tax Relief Act of 1998). H. Rept. 105–739. (House Ways and Means

Committee report on tax reduction and tax technical corrections provisions).

H.R. 4738 (Extension of Expiring Provisions and Other Tax Relief). H. Rept. 105–

817. (House Ways and Means Committee report on extension of expiring tax provisions, revenue offsets, and tax technical corrections).

S. 442 (Internet Tax Freedom Act). S. Rept. 105–276. (Finance Committee report

on amendment to the bill).

S. 1133 (Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act). S. Rept. 105–164. (Senate

Finance Committee report on education savings accounts, other education-related

tax provisions, and revenue offsets).

S. 1415 (Tobacco Settlement). No official report. (Technical explanation of Finance

Committee amendment to the bill).
94

B. TAX-RELATED CONFERENCE REPORT EXPLANATIONS

H.R. 2400 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century). H. Rept. 105–550.

(Conference report on the revenue provisions of the bill).

H.R. 2646 (Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998). H. Rept. 105–

577. (Conference report on the bill).

H.R. 4328 (Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998). H. Rept. 105–825 (Division J of Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,

1999). (Conference report on revenue provisions of the bill).

ATTACHMENT B.—1998 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION DOCUMENTS

JCS–98 DOCUMENTS

JCS–1–98—Description And Analysis Of Proposals Relating To The Recommendations Of The National Commission On Restructuring The Internal Revenue Service,

S. 1096, And H.R. 2676 As Passed By The House Scheduled for Public Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Finance Beginning on January 28, 1998. January 23,

1998

JCS–2–98—Tax Amnesty. January 30, 1998

JCS–3–98—Present Law And Analysis Relating To Individual Effective Marginal

Tax Rates. Scheduled for a Public Hearing by the House Committee on Ways and

Means on February 4, 1998. February 3, 1998

JCS–4–98—Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The President’s fiscal

year 1999 Budget Proposal. February 24, 1998

JCS–5–98—Comparison Of Provisions Of H.R. 2676 Relating To IRS Restructuring And Reform As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 18, 1998

JCS–6–98—General Explanation Of Tax Legislation Enacted In 1998. November

24, 1998

JCS–7–98—Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For fiscal years 1999–2003.

December 14, 1998

JCX–98 DOCUMENTS

JCX–1–98—Present Law And Background Relating To Proposals To Reduce The

Marriage Tax Penalty. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee

on Ways and Means on January 28, 1998. January 27, 1998

JCX–2–98—Present Law And Background Relating To Estate And Gift Taxes.

Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and Means

on January 28, 1998. January 27, 1998

JCX–3–98—Present Law And Issues Relating To The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (‘‘AMT’’). Scheduled for a Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways

and Means on February 4, 1998. February 2, 1998

JCX–4–98—Present Law And Background Relating To Taxation Of Capital Gains.

Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and Means

on February 12, 1998. February 6, 1998

JCX–5–98—Description Of Chairman’s Mark Of An Amendment To S. 1133 (‘‘Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act’’). Scheduled for Markup by the Senate

Committee on Finance on February 10, 1998. February 6, 1998

JCX–6–98—Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Treatment Of ‘‘Innocent Spouses’’. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Finance on February 11, 1998. February 9, 1998

JCX–7–98—Description Of Modifications To Chairman’s Mark Of An Amendment

To S. 1133 (‘‘Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act’’). Scheduled for Markup

by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 10, 1998. February 10, 1998

JCX–8–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of Chairman’s Mark With Modifications

Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To S. 1133, The ‘‘Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act’’. February 10, 1998

JCX–9–98—Description Of Revised Modifications To Chairman’s Mark Of An

Amendment To S. 1133 (‘‘Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act’’). Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 10, 1998. February 10, 1998

JCX–10–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Revised Chairman’s Mark With

Modifications Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To S. 1133, The

‘‘Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act’’. February 10, 1998

JCX–11–98—Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Incentives For Savings. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on Ways and

Means on February 12, 1998. February 11, 1998
95

JCX–12–98—Description Of Revenue Provision In Chairman’s Amendment In The

Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 1432, The ‘‘African Growth And Opportunity Act’’.

Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means on February

25, 1998. February 23, 1998

JCX–13–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman’s Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 1432, The ‘‘African Growth And Opportunity Act’’. February 23, 1998

JCX–14–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions Contained In

The President’s fiscal year 1999 Budget Proposal. February 24, 1998

JCX–15–98—Chairman’s Amendment Relating To Extension Of Highway Trust

Fund Excise Taxes And Related Trust Fund Provisions (Revenue Title To H.R.

2400). March 25, 1998

JCX–16–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of A Chairman’s Amendment Relating To

An Extension Of Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes And Related Trust Fund Provisions (Revenue Title To H.R. 2400) On March 26, 1998. March 25, 1998

JCX–17–98—Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue Service. Scheduled for

Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on March 31, 1998. March 26, 1998

JCX–18–98—Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark Of Tax

Technical Corrections Provisions. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee

on Finance on March 31, 1998. March 26, 1998

JCX–19–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance Committee

Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue

Service (5-year numbers) March 27, 1998

JCX–20–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance Committee

Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue

Service (10-year numbers). March 27, 1998

JCX–21–98—Description Of Modifications To Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue Service And Tax Technical Corrections Provisions. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate

Committee on Fiance on March 31, 1998. March 31, 1998

JCX–22–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance Committee

Chairman’s Mark, With Modifications, Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of

The Internal Revenue Service. March 31, 1998

JCX–23–98—Description Of Additional Modifications To Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal

Revenue Service And Tax Technical Corrections Provisions. March 31, 1998

JCX–24–98—Description Of Accepted Amendments To Senate Finance Committee

Chairman’s Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue

Service And Tax Technical Corrections Provisions, As Modified. March 31, 1998

JCX–25–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue Service As Ordered To Be Reported By The Senate Committee On

Finance On March 31, 1998. April 1, 1998

JCX–26–98—Present Law And Background On Federal Tax Provisions Relating

To Health Care. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on April 23, 1998. April 22, 1998

JCX–27–98—Comparison Of Transportation Revenue And Related Provisions Of

H.R. 2400, As Passed By The House And The Senate. April 27, 1998

JCX–28–98—Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of Transportation

Revenue And Related Provisions Of H.R. 2400, As Passed By The House And The

Senate. April 27, 1998

JCX–29–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of S. 1133, The Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act,’’ As Passed By The Senate On April 23, 1998. May 4, 1998

JCX–30–98—Overview Of Present-Law Tax Rules Relating To Qualified Pension

Plans. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the

House Committee on Ways and Means on May 5, 1998. May 4, 1998

JCX–31–98—Description Of Roth Financing Amendment To The ‘‘Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998’’ As Reported By The Senate

Committee On Finance. May 5, 1998

JCX–32–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 2676, The ‘‘Internal Revenue

Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,’’ As Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance And Modified By The Roth Financing Amendment. May 5, 1998

JCX–33–98—Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646 Relating To Certain Education Savings Tax Incentives As Passed By The House And The Senate.

May 11, 1998

JCX–34–98—Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646, As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 11, 1998
96

JCX–35–98—Description Of Present Law And Proposals Relating To Tobacco Tax

And Trust Fund And Other Provisions. Scheduled for Consideration by the Senate

Committee on Finance on May 14, 1998. May 14, 1998

JCX–36–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman’s Mark For Senate Finance Committee Markup Of S. 1415 On May 14, 1998. May 14, 1998a

JCX–37–98—Errata—‘‘Description Of Present Law And Proposals Relating To Tobacco Tax And Trust Fund And Other Provisions. May 14, 1998

JCX–38–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Amendment To S. 1415, As Agreed

To By The Senate Committee On Finance On May 14, 1998. May 14, 1998

JCX–39–98—Comparison Of Tax Technical Corrections Contained In H.R. 2676

As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 18, 1998

JCX–40–98—Distributional Effects Of S. 1415, As Reported By The Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, And Transportation. May 18, 1998

JCX–41–98—Distributional Effects Of An Amendment To S. 1415 As Reported By

The Senate Committee On Finance. May 18, 1998

JCX–42–98—Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 2676, The ‘‘Internal Revenue

Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,’’ As Passed By The Senate On May

7, 1998. May 20, 1998

JCX–43–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement Relating To

The Transportation Revenue And Trust Fund Provisions Of H.R. 2400 (Title IX).

May 22, 1998

JCX–44–98—Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 2676, The ‘‘Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,’’ As Passed By The

House And The Senate. May 28, 1998

JCX–45–98—Description And Analysis Of Revenue-Related Provisions Of S. 1415

Relating To National Tobacco Policy As Modified By The Manager’s Amendment.

June 3, 1998

JCX–46–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement On The

Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646. June 16, 1998

JCX–47–98—Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1997. June 16, 1998

JCX–48–98—Description Of Possible Proposals Relating To The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (‘‘AMT’’). Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 23,

1998. June 22, 1998

JCX–49–98—Description Of Possible Proposals To Reduce Tax Complexity For

Small Business. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on

Ways and Means on June 23, 1998. June 22, 1998

JCX–50–98R—Summary Of The Conference Agreement On H.R. 2676, The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998. June 24, 1998

JCX–51–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of Titles I–VIII Of The Conference Agreement Relating To H.R. 2676, The ‘‘Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998’’. June 24, 1998

JCX–52–98—Description Of Revenue And Social Security Provisions Included In

The Chairman’s Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 3249, The

‘‘Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act’’. June 24, 1998

JCX–53R–98—Listing Of Expiring Tax Provisions, 1998–2007. June 30, 1998

JCX–54–98—Description Of Revenue Provisions To Be Considered In Connection

With A Markup Of Trade Matters. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee

on Finance on July 21, 1998. July 20, 1998

JCX–55–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue And Trade Provisions To Be

Considered In Connection With A Markup Of Trade Matters. Scheduled For Markup

By The Senate Committee On Finance On July 21, 1998. July 21, 1998

JCX–56–98—Description Of Revenue Offsets For Medical Savings Account Provisions Contained In H.R. 4250, The ‘‘Patient Protection Act Of 1998’’. July 23, 1998

JCX–57–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of Medical Savings Account Provisions In

H.R. 4250, The ‘‘Patient Protection Act Of 1998,’’ And Revenue-Offset Provisions Of

An Amendment To Be Offered To The Bill. July 23, 1998

JCX–58–98—Description Of S. 442, The ‘‘Internet Tax Freedom Act,’’ And A Proposed Chairman’s Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute. Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on July 28, 1998. July 24, 1998

JCX–59–98—Background And Present Law Relating To Funding Mechanisms Of

The ‘‘E-Rate’’ Telecommunications Program. July 31, 1998

JCX–60–98—Description Of Major Provisions Contained In The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief

Act Of 1998’’. Scheduled for a Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means

on September 17, 1998. September 15, 1998
97

JCX–61–98—Description Of Tax Technical Corrections In The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief

Act Of 1998’’. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways and Means

on September 17, 1998. September 15, 1998

JCX–62–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998’’.

September 15, 1998

JCX–63–98—Distributional Effects Of The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998’’. September 15, 1998

JCX–64–98—Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To

The Provisions Contained In H.R. 4579, The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998’’. Scheduled for a Markup by the House committee on Ways and Means on September 17,

1998. September 17, 1998

JCX–65–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A

Substitute To H.R. 4579, The ‘‘Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998’’. September 17, 1998

JCX–66–98—Description Of Provisions In H.R. 4738. Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1998. October 9, 1998

JCX–67–98—Description Of Tax Technical Corrections Contained In H.R. 4738.

Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on October

9, 1998. October 9, 1998

JCX–68–98R—Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4738. Scheduled for Markup by

the Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1998. October 9, 1998

JCX–69–98—Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To

The Provisions In H.R. 4738. Scheduled for a Markup by the House Committee on

Ways and Means on October 9, 1998. October 9, 1998

JCX–70R–98—Description Of Provisions In S. 2622, The Tax Relief Extension Act

Of 1998. October 10, 1998

JCX–71–98R—Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 2622, The ‘‘Tax Relief Extension

Act Of 1998’’. October 10, 1998

JCX–72–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 4738, As Passed By The House Of

Representatives On October 12, 1998. October 13, 1998

JCX–73–98—Estimated Budget Effects Of Tax And Trade Provisions Of H.R.

4328, The ‘‘Omnibus Consolidated And Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Act, 1999’’. October 20, 1998

JCX–74–98—Summary Of Expiring Tax And Trade Provisions And Other Revenue Provisions Contained In H.R. 4328, The Omnibus Consolidated And Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. October 20, 1998

JCX–75–98—Summary Of Revenue Provisions Contained In Legislation Enacted

During The 105th Congress. November 19, 1998.

ATTACHMENT C.—Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimate requests

Calendar year No. of requests

1985 ......................................................................................................................... 348

1986 ......................................................................................................................... 474

1987 ......................................................................................................................... 420

1988 ......................................................................................................................... 900

1989 ......................................................................................................................... 1,290

1990 ......................................................................................................................... 1,286

1991 ......................................................................................................................... 1,461

1992 ......................................................................................................................... 2,350

1993 ......................................................................................................................... 2,380

1994 ......................................................................................................................... 1,259

1995 ......................................................................................................................... 2,278

1996 ......................................................................................................................... 1,792

1997 ......................................................................................................................... 2,079

1998 ......................................................................................................................... 2,729

ATTACHMENT D.—105TH CONGRESS REQUEST DATA 1

(As of January 13, 1999)

Requestors Requests

Received

Requests

Closed

Percent

Closed

Ways and Means Committee:

Republicans ...................................................................................... 1,036 887 85.6

Democrats ......................................................................................... 368 318 86.4

Senate Finance Committee:

Republicans ...................................................................................... 1,205 1,042 86.5
98

1Pursuant to our discussions, our report will now be on a fiscal year ended September 30.

This transition period will be a short nine-month period.

ATTACHMENT D.—105TH CONGRESS REQUEST DATA 1—Continued

(As of January 13, 1999)

Requestors Requests

Received

Requests

Closed

Percent

Closed

Democrats ......................................................................................... 800 693 86.6

Non-Ways and Means Committee:

Republicans ...................................................................................... 403 359 89.1

Democrats ......................................................................................... 182 152 83.5

Non-Senate Finance Committee:

Republicans ...................................................................................... 462 387 83.8

Democrats ......................................................................................... 484 387 80.0

Others ........................................................................................................ 50 48 96.0

Total ............................................................................................. 4,990 4,273 85.6

1 Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.

ATTACHMENT E.—MEMORANDUM

OCTOBER 28, 1998.

To: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation

From: Senior Refund Counsel

Subject: Refund Section—Operations Report January 1–September 30, 1998 1

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

period.

SUMMARY

Volume.—Refund Cases—439 reports were received during this period. The total

dollar amount of refunds was $4,836,746,304.

Reports received 1995 1996 1997 1998

Examination Division .................................................................... 425 375 457 334

Appeals Division ........................................................................... 132 101 124 92

Department of Justice .................................................................. 20 25 18 12

Chief Counsel ............................................................................... 2 5 3 1

Total ................................................................................ 579 506 602 439

Concerns 1 ..................................................................................... 79 104 88 58

1 Includes 12 post review deficiency cases for 1995, 16 for 1996, 4 for 1997, and 3 for 1998.

Post Review.—The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us on an annual

basis. During this reporting period, we received 44 of these cases and wrote 3 concerns.

Other Action.—(1) We transmitted for consideration of legislative action 7 issues

that arose in various cases.

(2) We transmitted memoranda suggesting the Service reconsider its position in

two areas, and one memorandum alerting them to an issue of industry importance.

Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the foregoing.

Errors identified by us in 1998 and prior years, and settled in 1998 produced a

net reduction in refunds of $20.4 million. The average annual reduction for the last

8 years is $11.1 million. Such corrections also reduced ATNOLCF’s, $46 million,

AMFTC’s $9 million, and regular tax credits $4.5 million. In addition, one joint committee reporter informed us of savings of $600,000 from corrections made before the

case was submitted to us, that resulted from memoranda we had written in an earlier case.
99

We hope that in spite of our decreased staffing we are satisfactorily accomplishing

our assigned portion of the Committee’s mission and meeting your expectations. We

look forward to a productive, challenging year.

EXHIBIT I.—REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405

[From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]

Month

No. of

cases

received

Cumulative

total

Cumulative

monthly

average

Dollar receipts Cumulative dollar

receipts

January ......................................... 37 37 37 $347,022,310 $347,022,310

February ....................................... 48 85 42 458,508,696 805,531,006

March ........................................... 62 147 49 776,532,808 1,582,063,814

April .............................................. 43 190 47 305,529,092 1,887,592,906

May ............................................... 53 243 48 354,459,118 2,242,052,024

June .............................................. 54 297 49 1,293,518,368 3,535,570,392

July ............................................... 62 359 51 766,793,099 4,302,363,491

August .......................................... 35 394 49 190,355,756 4,492,719,247

September .................................... 45 439 48 344,027,057 4,836,746,304

EXHIBIT II.—JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED IN BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE

[From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]

Amount Percent Amount Percent

TYPES OF TAXPAYERS SOURCE OF REPORTS

Individuals .............................. 23 5.24 Examination ........................... 334 76.08

Estates .................................... 7 1.59 Appeals .................................. 92 20.96

Trusts ...................................... 1 0.23 Justice .................................... 12 2.73

Corporations ............................ 408 92.94 Tax Court ................................ 1 0.23

Total ........................... 439 100.00 Total .......................... 439 100.00

EXHIBIT III.—JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS—REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND

APPEALS

[From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]

Month Examination Cumulative Appeals Cumulative

January .................................................................................. 22 22 13 13

February ................................................................................ 39 61 8 21

March .................................................................................... 51 112 9 30

April ...................................................................................... 36 148 6 36

May ....................................................................................... 41 189 12 48

June ....................................................................................... 43 232 9 57

July ........................................................................................ 39 271 20 77

August ................................................................................... 28 299 7 84

September ............................................................................. 35 334 8 92

EXHIBIT IV.—1998 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS FROM IRS 1

Examinations Appeals Total No. of concerns issued

Number of concerns issued .............................................. 40 15 55

Percent of total concerns issued ...................................... 73 27 100
100

EXHIBIT IV.—1998 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS FROM

IRS 1—Continued

Examinations Appeals Total No. of concerns issued

Total reports received ........................................................ 334 92 426

1 Number of Concerns does not include 3 on deficiency cases.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

So, the budget does not include the $200,000 and three additional FTE’s. Would you ask us to do that? That is not a lot of

money.

Senator ROTH. I think my personal answer, Mr. Chairman, would

be yes. I think that there is great merit in making a careful examination of the Internal Revenue Code. It would be a very, very considerable undertaking on the part of the Joint Committee, but I

will have to tell you, the more I have looked into the IRS, the Tax

Code, the complexity, the fact that different experts come out with

different answers, it is critically important that we move ahead

with reform.

Senator BENNETT. Well, I recall during the health care debate in

the 103rd Congress I quoted James Madison on the floor when he

said, laws must be understandable, and made the point that the

1,300 pages that were offered to us as the health care law were absolutely impenetrable. The then chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, took the floor and said, we have long

since gone beyond the time when laws were understandable. Consider the Internal Revenue Code, which no one understands and

which is three or four times as voluminous as the piece of legislation that the Senator from Utah is complaining about.

I think if we can resolve it for $200,000, we probably should do

it.

Senator ROTH. I would be very supportive of that approach.

Senator BENNETT. I have to ask the standard question. You have

a lot of hardware and software, a significant equipment budget, are

your systems Y2K compliant? Have you dealt with that challenge?

Ms. PAULL. Yes, our systems are. We currently produce lots of tables that include the year 2000 and beyond, and so we have already had a check-out and we are in good shape.

Senator BENNETT. I wish I could say that was the case for everyone who comes before us.

Senator ROTH. I think that is where our risk is, Mr. Chairman,

when we do work with outside organizations whether or not they

have made the necessary changes.

Senator BENNETT. All right. Senator Feinstein, I have no further

questions.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Just one, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator, just one quick question on the

additional——

Senator ROTH. Make it easy. [Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN (continuing). On the additional FTE’s. In your

remarks, you mentioned three missions. One is the complexity

analysis of the revenue provisions. I trust that means recommenda-
101

tions for simplification of the Tax Code. The second is the annual

report in connection with the hearings of the six congressional committees, and the third is the present law protections relating to disclosure and tax reform information.

Are those the three areas, or is there more for these people to

do?

Senator ROTH. There is more. For example, a study is being

taken and is to be available I think in July on penalties and interest. I think this is a critically important study because the number

of penalties and interest are a major concern of mine, particularly

in light of the complexity and lack of understanding of the Tax

Code. People can work in good faith and try to do what is right or

they may have made an honest mistake, and yet they are subject

to significant penalties, as well as interest. I think this is a matter

that cries for further study. There may be other matters.

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE TAX CODE

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is there now no kind of oversight, review

process in the sense of recommendations for change?

Ms. PAULL. Well, part of the Joint Committee’s mission is to look

at the Tax Code and make recommendations on how to simplify the

Code. We have a project going on right now and we have done several projects in the past to make some recommendations on simplification.

But the additional appropriations would be to cover all of the Tax

Code, not just single out areas where we think priority attention

ought to be given. So, it would be a much more comprehensive effort than we do today in trying to identify the worst parts of the

Tax Code and make recommendations to address that.

In addition, we did absorb in our budget some of the duties that

were given to us under the IRS restructuring bill, the two studies

that were mentioned, as well as the complexity analysis and the coordination of the joint hearings. So, it is really this big effort, looking through the entire Tax Code and making a recommendation,

that would really be a much larger undertaking than we could absorb in our budget today.

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are asking for this up to the year 2003,

or this is a permanent addition?

Ms. PAULL. The comprehensive report is once every Congress.

What we are asking for is an annual appropriation of $200,000 and

three FTE’s to devote those resources to that once-a-Congress report.

Senator FEINSTEIN. On an ongoing basis.

Ms. PAULL. That is correct.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. Let me revisit that. Is there any similar effort

going forward in the Library of Congress Congressional Research

Service?

Ms. PAULL. I am not aware of that, but the IRS restructuring bill

does ask the IRS to perform a similar function on an annual basis.

Their first report will be due March of the year 2000.

Senator ROTH. I think there is great merit in duplication.

Senator BENNETT. I see a group of experts with different

patrons——
102

Senator ROTH. Exactly.

Senator BENNETT (continuing). Gathering around the table and

swapping ideas. So, I am not suggesting you do not need it if the

Congressional Research Service has it, but when we get the Library of Congress before us, we may ask them if their Congressional Research Service has some experts that are working on this.

So, the IRS will come and say this is how we think, the Joint Committee on Taxation comes and says this is how we think, and the

Congressional Research Service says this is how we think. Maybe

we will get some fertile ideas coming out of that kind of exchange.

Senator ROTH. Right. It is a major undertaking and it is extraordinarily difficult.

Senator BENNETT. It is. I was involved in Senator Dole’s effort

to try to come up with an idea, and we finally settled on saying

it will take us 2 years. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and the

work you do.

Ms. PAULL. Mr. Chairman, if I might also leave some background

pamphlets that we did in response to your concerns and the subcommittee’s concerns about access to our services by other Members than the tax-writing committees so they can understand what

we do and how to use our services.

Senator BENNETT. We have some statistics on that.

Ms. PAULL. Yes, I know. We are very interested in making sure

everybody uses our services and has equal access.

Senator BENNETT. Well, I noticed the one group that has the

highest response. You might be interested, Senator Feinstein. We

raised the issue that their staff only responds to people from the

Ways and Means and the Finance Committees. You will find now

that on the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans get 85.6 of

their questions answered and the Democrats 86.4; the Senate Finance Committee Republicans, 86.5 and the Democrats, 86.6. But

non-Ways and Means Committee Republicans are 89.1. That is the

highest level, and the lowest level is non-Finance Committee

Democrats. I wonder if that reflects the Speaker who would be a

non-Ways and Means Committee Republican? The Speaker may be

the one who has driven that number higher. [Laughter.]

Ms. PAULL. The leadership certainly usually needs information

quickly when they ask for it.

Senator BENNETT. Since the Leader over here is a Finance Committee Republican——

Ms. PAULL. But if you would look at the absolute numbers in the

Senate, non-Finance Committee members, it is a factor that there

are a lot more amendments that get offered on the Senate floor

than they do in the House. You can see the absolute numbers are

high.

Senator BENNETT. Well, your overall response: 85.6 percent. You

mentioned that in your testimony, which is why I did not pursue

it in the questions. Your desire to get that up is recognized and we

appreciate your concern.

Senator ROTH. Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.
(103)

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

STATEMENT OF HON. CONNIE MACK, CHAIRMAN

OPENING REMARKS

Senator BENNETT. We welcome Senator Connie Mack, the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee that has requested

$3,200,000 for fiscal year 2000, which is a slight increase over fiscal year 1999 to provide accommodation for cost-of-living for staff

and nondiscretionary agency contributions.

Senator, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

Senator MACK. You just made my statement. [Laughter.]

I do have a couple of comments that I will make.

But first of all, let me say what a pleasure it is to be back with

the committee, this time sitting on this side of the desk.

Senator BENNETT. Senator Mack and I—when he was the chairman of this subcommittee—cut the Joint Economic Committee

back, so he has to live with that now that he is the chairman.

Senator MACK. Well, as a matter of fact, if I remember correctly,

it was about a 24 percent cut in real terms and we reduced the

staff from about 50, 51 to 38, which was in 1994.

Senator BENNETT. 1995.

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE BUDGET REQUEST

Senator MACK. 1995? Yes.

We have the same number of personnel now as we did after we

made the cut. We have held it steady during that period of time.

I just have a short statement that I would like to present.

The Joint Economic Committee, as you have indicated, requests $3.2 million for fiscal year 2000. This budget request reflects the

anticipated cost-of-living adjustments and incremental nondiscretionary agency contributions.

The 106th Congress will confront a host of important economic

issues that will have a far-reaching impact for the next 2 years and

the coming millennium. It is my hope that the upcoming debates

on Social Security, tax reform, and the budget, among many other

economic issues, will be better informed by analyses provided by

the Joint Economic Committee. I am committed to providing Congress with quality research that will help us make the best possible

decisions for this country.

These are truly exciting times. A technological revolution has

produced the emergence and integration of world financial markets

to create a global economy. As much of the world struggles to adapt

to the changes demanded by these new realities, the United States

stands as a beacon to economic growth. The way in which this Congress addresses the many economic issues before it will affect the

long-term economic health of our country, as well as the paths

which many other nations will follow.
104

Producing and disseminating accurate economic research and

analysis will be the hallmark of this Congress’ Joint Economic

Committee. Only through the use of accurate research can we promote the informed policy debates that are crucial to the formation

of sound economic policy. It is my judgment that this can be accomplished within the budget request that I have made.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a moment ago, we have

held the staff positions to the same number now, 1995, 1996, 1997,

1998, 1999, and this will be into the year 2000. At the same time

that we have made those reductions, we have been able to produce

quality information and information that is of benefit to the Congress. I would hope that you would be supportive of our budget request.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The increase you mentioned is to cover inflation, but there is a

component over which we have no control over, the nondiscretionary agency contributions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONNIE MACK

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you this morning as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

I am happy to be here. The Joint Economic Committee requests $3,200,000 for fiscal

year 2000. This budget request reflects the anticipated cost of living adjustments

and incremental nondiscretionary agency contributions.

The 106th Congress will confront a host of important economic issues that will

have a far-reaching impact for the next two years and the coming millennium. It

is my hope that the upcoming debates on Social Security, Tax Reform, and the

Budget, among many other economic issues, will be better informed by analyses provided by the Joint Economic Committee. I am committed to providing Congress with

quality research that will help it make the best possible decisions for this country.

These are truly exciting times. A technological revolution has produced the emergence and integration of world financial markets to create a global economy. As

much of the world struggles to adapt to the changes demanded by these new realities, the United States stands as a beacon to economic growth. The way in which

this Congress addresses the myriad of economic issues before it will affect the longterm economic health of our country, as well as the paths which many other nations

may follow. For these reasons, this Congress must possess the ability to gather and

utilize the most accurate economic data available. My staff and I are committed to

providing this data in a concise and accessible manner so that we may meet the

challenges that face us and make the best possible decisions for the 21st century.

Producing and disseminating accurate economic research and analysis will be the

hallmark of this Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. Only through the use of accurate research can we promote the informed policy debates that are crucial to the

formation of sound economic policy. It is my judgment that this can be accomplished

with this budget request.

I thank you and welcome your questions.

Senator BENNETT. You have covered all of the issues that I had

as questions.

Do you have any questions Senator Feinstein?

Senator FEINSTEIN. No questions. A piece of cake.

Senator MACK. A piece of cake. That is right.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much for all you do.

Senator MACK. Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. We appreciate your coming in.
(105)

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

STATEMENT OF RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ACCOMPANIED BY:

PAM TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE

GARY GREEN, GENERAL COUNSEL

BETH HUGHES-BROWN, ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGET OFFICER

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

Senator BENNETT. We recognize officially Ms. Ricky Silberman

who is the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. If you

want to introduce the people who are with you.

Ms. SILBERMAN. I do indeed. Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein, this is the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Pam

Talkin, who has been here before; Gary Green, General Counsel of

the Office of Compliance; and Beth Hughes-Brown, our Administrative and Budget Officer. We are honored to be here today to

present to you the office’s fiscal year 2000 budget.

I know you will be pleased to hear that this year we are once

again asking for less money than we received last year: $2.076 million for fiscal year 2000, which is a half percent decrease from our

fiscal year 1999 budget. We have actually sustained a decrease of

over 20 percent over the past 3 years that the office has been in

existence.

The majority of our expenditures continue to be in personnel

costs and personal services contracts. For example, section 215 of

the CAA, which applied portions of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act to the legislative branch, vests in the General Counsel

the authority to conduct inspections and investigate health and

safety complaints. During this past fiscal year, requests for inspections and investigations under section 215 have increased significantly. OSHA is proving to be one of the most significant responsibilities that we have under the act.

The nature of some of these requests has required expert guidance in the performance of a wide range of occupational safety and

health analyses, and assistance in the preparation of technical reports. Gary Green, our General Counsel, who enforces OSHA, ADA,

and the labor-management portions of the CAA, is here to address

any questions that you may have in this area.

The strictly confidential alternative dispute resolution system,

which Congress provided legislative branch employees in the CAA,

continues to be a model of effectiveness. I think it is probably the

single most important reason why our costs continue to go down.

It is based on the principle that an informed regulated community

and early resolution of disputes is most cost effective and best for

employees and employing offices. Indeed, the process has proved so

effective that the Board of Directors has recommended that Congress provide the private and Federal sectors ‘‘with the same effi-
106

cient and effective method of resolving disputes that the legislative

branch now enjoys.’’

This recommendation was made in the biennial section 102(b)

study recently submitted to Congress. In that study, the Board is

required to review and report on the applicability to Congress of

employment laws passed subsequent to the CAA, and that report

also included the Board’s evaluation of the comprehensiveness of

coverage of the CAA laws to the three largest instrumentalities, a

task that was left to the future time when the CAA was passed.

Those three instrumentalities are the Library of Congress, the

General Accounting Office, and the Government Printing Office.

We have sent along copies of the 102(b) study to members of the

committee, and we have one available if anybody would like to see

it.

We have also attached with our submission for your information

the section 301(h) report, and that contains the statistics which the

office is required to maintain on employee use of the office.

The office is mandated to provide a comprehensive program of

education and information, and that includes briefings for Senate

employing offices, as well as a number of publications regarding

rights and responsibilities under the Congressional Accountability

Act. These education and information activities and the publication

of reports and studies account for most of the printing and postage

costs and much of the cost of materials requested for fiscal year

2000.

Mr. Chairman, we acknowledge and appreciate your leadership

of and interest in addressing the year 2000 compliance in legislative branch agencies. We have made good use of the guidance of

the GAO team working at your behest in this past year. We have

assessed, tested and, when necessary, revised and replaced the

mission-critical systems that could be affected at the turn of the

century. We have gone into considerable detail in our written statement as to what we have done. I will go into it if you like or skip

over it and you can ask questions which I will not be able to answer, but Beth Hughes-Brown will absolutely be able to answer.

When we first went into business over 3 years ago, Beth came

in and said, you know, there is a real problem looming in the future, and she has been on top of this. We are very proud of the fact

that we are totally compliant at this point with the exception of

something that we have no control over and that is the telecommunication systems. We have a redundant system in place with

cell phones just in case we need it.

So, moving right along, looking to the future of the Office of

Compliance, we have conducted an analysis and evaluation of office

functions and operations in terms of future needs. Our reduced

workload, as I said earlier, in counseling, mediation, and hearings

seems to be stabilized at really a much reduced level. However, we

have had an increased demand in OSHA and other activities, and

we are reorganizing and reallocating our resources. We believe we

will be able to further trim our budget by reducing staff by attrition within the next year. We are already moving to do that, but

of course if the Congress were to increase the office’s authority and

responsibility, as recommended in the 102(b) report, a reassessment is going to be necessary.
107

PREPARED STATEMENT

We are very proud of the work of this office, and I would like to

take this opportunity to thank you and Christine Ciccone for the

support which has unfailingly been afforded to us in the nearly 4

years since Congress passed the CAA and since the Office of Compliance was begun.

We will be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICKY SILBERMAN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. As the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, I am honored to be here to present to you the

Office’s year 2000 budget. With me are my colleagues the statutory officers: Deputy

Executive Director for the Senate, Pam Talkin; Jim Stephens, Deputy Executive Director for the House; General Counsel, Gary Green and Beth Hughes-Brown, Administrative and Budget Officer.

This year we once again are asking for less money than last: $2.076 million for

fiscal year 2000, a 0.5 percent decrease from our fiscal year 1999 budget, and a decrease of more than 20 percent over the past three years. The majority of our appropriation expenditures continue to be in personnel costs and personal services contracts. For example, Section 215 of the CAA, which applied portions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to the legislative branch, vests in the General Counsel

the authority to conduct inspections and investigate health and safety complaints.

During this past fiscal year, requests for inspections and investigations under Section 215 have increased significantly. The nature of some of these requests required

expert guidance in the performance of a wide range of occupational safety and

health analyses, and assistance in preparation of technical reports. Gary Green, our

General Counsel, who enforces the OSHA, ADA, and other sections of the CAA, is

here to address any questions you may have.

The strictly confidential alternative dispute resolution system, which Congress

provided legislative branch employees in the CAA, continues to be a model of effectiveness. It is based on the principle that an informed regulated community and

early resolution of disputes is most cost effective and best for employees and employing offices. Indeed, the process has proved so effective that the Board of Directors has recommended that Congress provide the private and federal sectors ‘‘with

the same efficient and effective method of resolving disputes that the legislative

branch now enjoys.’’

This recommendation was made in the biennial Section 102(b) Study recently submitted to Congress in which the Board is required to review and report on the applicability to Congress of employment laws passed subsequent to the CAA. That report

also included the Board’s evaluation of the comprehensiveness of coverage of the

CAA laws to the three largest instrumentalities—the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the Government Printing Office. I’ve brought copies of

the 102(b) Study with me today for you and the members of the Committee. We

have also attached for your information the Section 301(h) report of the statistics

which the Office is required to maintain and publish on employee use of the Office.

The Office provides a comprehensive program of education and information including monthly briefings for House employing offices, quarterly newsletters which

are sent to all legislative branch employees, and a comprehensive manual for employing offices on rights and responsibilities under the Congressional Accountability

Act. Education and information activities, in addition to the publication of reports

and studies, account for most of the printing and postage costs and much of the cost

of materials requested for fiscal year 2000.

We acknowledge and appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in addressing

year 2000 compliance in legislative branch agencies. We have made good use of the

guidance of the GAO team working at your behest in the past year, to assess, test,

and when necessary revise or replace the mission critical systems that could be affected at the turn of the next century. We have had a certain degree of advantage

over some other agencies due to our small size, recent startup, and most importantly, due to the fact that our internal systems are completely PC-based. All of our

personal computers are Y2K compliant, in terms of hardware, software, and networking and operating systems. All of our peripheral equipment, including printers,

faxes, modems, TDD’s, copiers, postage meters, scanners, and the technical equipment needed to conduct OSHA inspections, are compliant as well, and have been
108

tested for interoperability issues. Our e-mail system, voice mail system and recorded

information line are compliant and ready.

External systems include accounting, our web page, and payroll. The Office is

cross-serviced by the Library of Congress for accounting and disbursement purposes,

and the Library loaded the new compliant version of the Federal Financial Systems

software in production mode last June. It has passed all tests, including interface

issues. Our web page is maintained on a GPO server, which has been fully tested,

and we access the server by a dial-up software that is also compliant. We are crossserviced by the National Finance Center for payroll purposes, and all newly compliant NFC systems have been in production mode since September, 1998. Direct deposit could be a problem for some employees, since NFC has no control over banks,

but with such a small number of employees, the Office will generate replacement

hard copy checks if necessary.

The only area where the Office has insufficient control over our vendors and their

component vendors is in telecommunications. Our phone instruments are fully compliant, as are the switches we lease. We are not satisfied with the assurance we’ve

received to date from our telecommunications vendors, and our phone system is one

of our most critical systems. Therefore, we have a contingency plan in place, and

will be procuring cell phones for essential staff members late this year.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Office of Compliance has conducted an analysis and

evaluation of Office functions and needs. In light of our reduced workload in counseling, mediation and hearings and the increased demand in OSHA and other activities, we have reorganized and reallocated our resources. We believe we’ll be able to

further trim our budget by reducing staff by attrition within the next year or two.

We’re very proud of the work of the Office and I would like to take this opportunity

to thank you and Christine Ciccone for the support which has been unfailingly afforded to us in the nearly four years since the passage of the CAA.

We’d be delighted to answer any questions.

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE SECTION 301(H) REPORT TO CONGRESS—JANUARY 1, 1998–

DECEMBER 31, 1998

INTRODUCTION

The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) generally applies provisions of eleven

federal labor and employment laws to over 20,000 covered congressional employees

and employing offices. The Office of Compliance (Office), an independent agency in

the legislative branch, was established in the CAA to administer and enforce the

Act and provide a process for the timely and confidential resolution of workplace

disputes. Section 310(h) of the CAA requires that the Office of Compliance:

* * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office by covered employees,

including the number and type of contacts made with the Office, on the reason for

such contacts, on the number of covered employees who initiated proceedings with

the Office under this Act and results of such proceedings, and on the number of covered employees who file a complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the action

taken on the complaint.

This third annual report, which provides information for the period from January

1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, begins with a summary of the authority and

responsibilities of the Office of Compliance.

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The CAA establishes the Office of Compliance with a Board of five members, who

serve on a part-time basis, and four statutory appointees: the Executive Director,

Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Deputy Executive Director for the House,

and the General Counsel. The Office is charged with providing alternative dispute

resolution procedures, adjudicative hearings and appeals, for covered legislative

branch employees and education and information on the CAA to members of Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the legislative branch. The Board

is required to adopt substantive regulations for implementation of certain provisions

of the CAA and the Executive Director to adopt rules governing the procedures of

the Office. The Office of the General Counsel enforces the provisions of sections 210

and 215, relating to health and safety and public access requirements, including investigation and prosecution of claims under these sections, and periodic inspections

to ensure compliance. Additionally, the General Counsel investigates and prosecutes

unfair labor practices under section 220 of the CAA.

The CAA applies the rights and protections of provisions of the following eleven

labor and employment statutes to covered employees within the legislative branch:
109

title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

of 1967; title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Fair Labor Standards

Act of 1938; the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988; the Worker Adjustment

and Retraining Act; chapter 43 of title 38 of the U.S. Code (relating to veterans’ employment and reemployment); the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating

to public services and accommodations; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970; and chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to federal service labormanagement relations).

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT—JANUARY 1, 1998–DECEMBER 31, 1998

Number of Contacts Received by the Office of Compliance: 544

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

544 requests for information from covered employees, employing offices, the public, unions, and the press were made by phone and in person from January 1, 1998

to December 31, 1998. Contacts were as follows:

Employees ............................................................................................................... 302

Employing offices ................................................................................................... 159

Public ...................................................................................................................... 66

Unions ..................................................................................................................... 14

Press ........................................................................................................................ 3

Recorded Information line ..................................................................................... 141

In addition, the Office of Compliance website proved to be a frequent and efficient

means for covered employees, covered employing offices and the general public to

access information on the CAA.

Reasons for Employee Contacts

302 covered employees contacted the Office asking questions under the following

sections: (note: Aggregate numbers will not necessarily match category totals as a

single contact may involve more than one section or subsection of the CAA, and/or

more than one issue or alleged violation.)

Section Description Contacts

201 Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ........................................................... 74

202 Rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ..................... 36

203 Rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ............................. 27

204 Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 .............. ................

205 Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act .. ................

206 Rights and protections relating to veterans’ employment and reemployment ................. ................

207 Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal ............................................................................... 7

210 Rights and protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to

public services and accommodations; procedures for remedy of violations ............... 1

215 Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of violations ...................................................................................... 2

220 Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, Relating to Federal service

labor-management relations ......................................................................................... 11

NA Questions regarding the general application of the CAA ................................................. 33

NA Questions on matters which were not cognizable under the CAA .................................... 136

The 302 employee contacts were for information regarding:

Assignments ........................................................................................................... 9

Benefits ................................................................................................................... 1

Compensatory time off ........................................................................................... 4

Compensation ......................................................................................................... 7

Demotion ................................................................................................................. 2

Discharge ................................................................................................................ 1

Discipline ................................................................................................................ 8
110

1 It should be noted that the alleged unlawful application of a single policy of an employing

office may involve multiple individual claims.

Equal pay ................................................................................................................ 2

Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 6

Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act ............................................... 4

General questions regarding statutory requirements ......................................... 39

Harassment ............................................................................................................ 28

Hiring ...................................................................................................................... 5

Hours of work ......................................................................................................... 4

Leave ....................................................................................................................... 37

Leave eligibility ...................................................................................................... 3

Overtime pay .......................................................................................................... 11

Promotion ............................................................................................................... 25

Reasonable accommodations ................................................................................. 5

Reassignment ......................................................................................................... 1

Recordkeeping ........................................................................................................ 2

Scheduling .............................................................................................................. 4

Termination ............................................................................................................ 18

Terms and conditions of employment ................................................................... 11

Time off ................................................................................................................... 1

Requests for written materials ............................................................................. 5

Number of Proceedings Initiated by Covered Employees: 60

Pursuant to title IV of the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides dispute resolution in the form of counseling and mediation. A proceeding under the CAA is initiated by an individual employee’s request for counseling alleging a violation of the

CAA.1

60 employees from the following employing offices filed formal requests for counseling:

The Architect of the Capitol .................................................................................. 30

Capitol Guide Service ............................................................................................ ............

Capitol Police .......................................................................................................... 6

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................. ............

House of Representatives (non-member or committee offices) ........................... 4

House of Representatives (member offices) ......................................................... 9

House of Representatives (committee office) ....................................................... 1

Senate (non-Senator or committee offices) ........................................................... 6

Senator .................................................................................................................... 3

Senate (committee office) ...................................................................................... 1

Total employee counseling requests .......................................................... 60

These 60 requests for counseling alleged violations under the following sections

of the Congressional Accountability Act: (Please see note above regarding aggregate

numbers.)

Section Description Cases

201 Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 .......................................................................... 61

202 Rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ......................... 5

203 Rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ................................. 2

207 Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal ................................................................................... 27

Workplace issues raised by employees requesting counseling under the CAA fell

into the following categories: (Please see note above regarding aggregate numbers.)

Assignments ........................................................................................................... 3

Benefits ................................................................................................................... 1

Compensation ......................................................................................................... 2

Demotion ................................................................................................................. 2

Discharge ................................................................................................................ 3

Discipline ................................................................................................................ 2

Equal pay ................................................................................................................ 1

Harassment ............................................................................................................ 14
111

Hiring ...................................................................................................................... 3

Layoff ...................................................................................................................... 1

Leave ....................................................................................................................... 7

Overtime Pay .......................................................................................................... 2

Promotion ............................................................................................................... 20

Reasonable accommodations ................................................................................. 1

Reassignment ......................................................................................................... 4

Scheduling .............................................................................................................. 1

Selection .................................................................................................................. 3

Suspension .............................................................................................................. 1

Termination ............................................................................................................ 21

Terms and conditions of employment ................................................................... 3

Results of the Proceedings

Counseling.—Of the 60 counseling requests received between January 1, 1998 and

December 31, 1998, and the 11 pending on January 1, 1998: 11 cases closed during

or after counseling, but before mediation—0 settled and 11 sought no further action;

2 cases were pending at the end of 1998; 58 requests for mediation were filed.

Mediation.—58 mediation requests received between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998. In addition, on January 1, 1998 there were 12 cases pending in mediation, and 13 cases which had completed mediation and were in the open period for

filing a complaint. Of those 83 cases:

—49 cases closed during or after mediation

—18 cases were settled (including one case that settled after District Court suit)

—in 28 cases, no further action was taken by the covered employee after mediation ended

—4 civil actions were filed in District Court (one of which was settled);

—13 cases were pending in mediation on December 31, 1998;

—10 cases had completed mediation and were in the time period when a complaint could be filed;

—12 complaints were filed after mediation ended.

Complaints.—If the dispute remains unresolved after counseling and mediation,

an employee may elect to file a civil action in the district courts of the United States

or to file a complaint with the Office. If a complaint is filed with the Office, a Hearing Officer is appointed to hear the case and issue a decision.

Twelve complaints were filed with the Office between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998 and one complaint was pending on January 1, 1998.

Basis of Complaints

The complaints filed during 1998 involved the following issues: alleged discrimination in assignments based on race and gender; alleged failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability (2 cases); alleged retaliatory

discipline; alleged termination based on age; alleged termination based on national

origin, race and color; alleged discrimination based on race and disability; alleged

termination based on age and disability; alleged termination based on age and gender; alleged failure to promote based on gender; alleged failure to promote based on

gender and race; alleged harassment and termination based on race and in retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by the CAA.

Action Taken on Complaints

Any party aggrieved by a Hearing Officer’s decision may file a petition for review

of the decision by the Board of Directors of the Office.

During January 1, 1998–December 31, 1998:

Hearings.—2 hearing officer decisions were issued; 6 cases were settled or otherwise resolved before the hearings concluded; 5 complaints were pending either with

hearings scheduled for early 1999 or awaiting Hearing Officer decisions.

Appeals.—No petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions were filed with the

Board; 3 petitions were pending on January 1, 1998; 2 Hearing Officer decisions

were not appealed and became the final decisions of the Office.

Board action.—3 Board decisions were issued in 1998; No petitions for review of

Hearing Officer decisions were pending on December 31, 1998.

Judicial review.—1 Petition for review was filed; One court decision was issued

on a petition for review filed in 1997. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit upheld the Board’s decision.

Labor-Management Relations

The Office carries out the Board’s investigative authorities under section 220 of

the CAA, involving issues concerning the appropriateness of bargaining units for
112

labor organization representation, the duty to bargain, and exceptions to arbitrators’

awards.

During January 1, 1998–December 31, 1998:

—2 representation petitions were filed;

—1 Board decision was issued clarifying that several newly encumbered positions

were included in a previously certified unit;

—2 Board Decisions and Directions of Election were issued, one of which set aside

the results of the initial election because of objectionable conduct and ordered

a second election (prior to the holding of the second election, the labor organization withdrew its representation petition);

—2 election agreements were entered into by the parties and approved by the Executive Director on behalf of the Board;

—2 elections were conducted. As a result of the elections, one labor organization

was certified as the bargaining representative of employees;

—2 petitions were pending on December 31, 1998: a representation petition filed

by a labor organization seeking to represent a unit of approximately 19 employees, and a unit clarification petition seeking to resolve the unit status of certain

employees in a bargaining unit certified in 1997.

The Office of the General Counsel

The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for matters arising under three

sections of the CAA: section 210—Public Services and Accommodations under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; section 215—Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970; and section 220—unfair labor practices under chapter 71, of

title 5, United States Code.

58 requests for Information and Technical Assistance were made from January

1998 through December 1998 under the following sections:

Section 210: Public Services and Accommodations under the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 ...................................................................................... 14

Section 215: Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ................................. 41

Section 220: Unfair Labor Practices under chapter 71, of title 5, United

States Code ......................................................................................................... 3

From January 1998 through December 1998, the following actions occurred:

Section 210:

Charges filed ................................................................................................... 1

Cases closed ..................................................................................................... 1

Cases pending as of December 31, 1998 ....................................................... ............

Section 215:

Requests for inspections filed ........................................................................ 21

Cases closed ..................................................................................................... 18

Cases pending as of December 31, 1998 ....................................................... 3

Section 220:

Unfair Labor Practice charges filed .............................................................. 14

Complaints issued ........................................................................................... 1

Cases closed ..................................................................................................... 9

Cases pending as of December 31, 1998 ....................................................... 5

WORKLOAD AND OSHA EXPERIENCE

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

I am delighted that the demands on some of your services are

going down, which shows that Congress is beginning to understand

some of the things that they have to do and they do not need to

come running to you for advice and counsel.

I am not surprised that the increase in OSHA is there. I remember when I was in the private sector, I walked into a company and

they had a little sign hanging on the wall that said, if you think

OSHA is a small town in Wisconsin, you are in real trouble.

[Laughter.]

So, we are beginning to discover what business people have discovered.

At some point I would like to visit with you about what we have

learned about OSHA that might be used to amend the law with re-
113

spect to OSHA. I remember Senator Kempthorne and others were

finding horror stories of OSHA requirements that defied all common sense. Someone was fined for improperly storing a toxic substance, and it turned out it was a squeeze bottle of Joy detergent

that they put under the sink. Someone said that is improper storage of a toxic substance, and it is something every one of us does

in our own homes all the time. There are not very many toddlers

in the congressional work place who might get it and even fewer

who might drink it. I think that was a case of regulatory overkill.

One of the reasons I supported the CAA was because I wanted

Congress to begin to understand those kinds of experiences. We

had them routinely in the business world and legislators just kind

of laughed us off. Now if we can have some examples of legislators

who are really upset by some of the regulatory excesses, maybe we

can change the law. You have become the repository of those kinds

of examples. So, at some point I would like to come talk to you

about that.

Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, we would like to talk to you about it as

well. Our experiences in OSHA have been very interesting. Generally we have found that the Congress and the congressional employees are working in important ways in much safer circumstances because of the OSHA regulation. Now, we like to think

that we are not unreasonable regulators, and I know that the law

has been put to very good use, and particularly in the area of flammable substances. You all were working under conditions that were

dangerous to you and that we have been able to correct.

Senator BENNETT. I am sure that is true. I am not in any way

suggesting that OSHA should be repealed, just maybe fine tuned

a little here and there.

Senator Feinstein, do you have any questions?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY

Ms. Silberman, I gather from your comment if you were to get

the enhanced authority, you would need an additional budget allocation. Is that correct?

Ms. SILBERMAN. We are not sure of that, Senator. One of the experiences that we have had is that in the beginning, at least when

we got the original authority, there was a front-loading, of necessity, for publications of materials, for education and information,

and of course, in any new law there is a lot of activity in the beginning.

My guess is that if we were to get the Library of Congress, the

GAO, and the GPO in the way that the Board has recommended,

that we might need some increase from what we have now reduced

ourselves to. I have been loathe to get us into a situation where

we would take these reductions and then get the increased authority and not be able to do it.

But I think we are OK. So far, we are certainly OK. Everybody

has been wonderful about being realistic about what the needs of

this office are, and I would trust that that would continue if we

were to get the increased authority.
114

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could I ask you, is the enhanced authority

you are referring to on page 3 of your executive summary? Are

those the recommendations for changes?

Ms. SILBERMAN. There are recommendations in two areas which

actually interrelate. One set of recommendations has to do with

those areas of the CAA laws, the 11 CAA laws, which were not

made applicable by Congress when it passed the CAA.

ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY FOR RETALIATION

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, one of the things that intrigued me was

this prohibits intimidation or reprisal for opposing any practice

made unlawful by the act or for participation in any proceeding

under the act. What is that all about?

Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, that is retaliation. Congressional employees are protected from retaliation under the CAA, but it is a general protection for which the Office of Compliance has no enforcement authority.

Senator FEINSTEIN. But what kind of retaliation could there be?

Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, for coming to file a claim at the Office of

Compliance, people could get fired. People can be demoted. People

can be intimidated. It is the one area, I have to tell you, that our

experience in 3 years is that we have insufficient enforcement authority. The report goes into that. The reason for that is that——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you saying that a Member of Congress

or a Member of the Senate would punish somebody for filing a report?

Ms. SILBERMAN. A Member of Congress or a Member of the Senate is an employer in the sense that one is an employer under the

private sector. So, it is possible that that could happen.

But you also have to remember that there are 22,000 employees

covered under the CAA. They include the Architect of the Capitol,

the Capitol Police, and other small and larger legislative entities.

But reprisal and retaliation is the single most serious institutionthreatening act that can be taken under many of these laws. It is

true in the private sector. When I was Vice Chairman of the

EEOC, those were the complaints that we took most seriously, and

it is true in the other enforcement agencies.

But you have to remember that under the CAA, the employees

of the legislative branch have access to this wonderful alternative

dispute resolution system. There is no investigation, and there is

no enforcement of the law other than to go to court or to go into

an adjudicative hearing.

Retaliation is the one area where mediation and counseling does

not seem to work as well. People are concerned about using it because they are concerned about the act itself.

We have gone into that at some length, and there is a lot more

about it in the report which I commend to you. We were asked by

Congress, when you passed the CAA, to every 2 years review the

effectiveness of the CAA in terms of new laws that have been

passed and also our recommendations as to how it has worked.

This was the report that was issued on January 1st of this year

that has a lot of interesting stuff in it and I do commend it to you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could I ask you another question?

Ms. SILBERMAN. Sure.
115

ADDITIONAL RECORD KEEPING

Senator FEINSTEIN. What kind of additional record keeping

would be required of Members?

Ms. SILBERMAN. There is no record keeping required of Members,

although there is considerable record keeping required in the private sector. That is another area of the law that Congress did not

extend to itself which is part of the private sector law. This falls

along the lines of what the Chairman was asking me before. The

CAA does not completely apply the laws that are applied in the private sector, whether it is in OSHA—and certainly under the Fair

Labor Standards Act.

The lack of record keeping requirements is another omission that

the Board looked to, and we believe that it would be very helpful

both to Senators and Congressmen and other employing offices, as

well as to employees when employees file a claim, if there were

some record keeping so that we could use that for a factual analysis. But there is no record keeping requirement. Early on our

Board decided that that was not a change that they would be able

to make under the standards that were established under the CAA,

that it would take a legislative change to make record keeping requirements necessary.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Ms. SILBERMAN. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

I am interested in following up on Senator Feinstein’s comment.

The complaints that were actually filed. You say 12 complaints

were filed. These are those that are unresolved.

Ms. SILBERMAN. That is right. That is correct.

Senator BENNETT. How many employees do you deal with?

Ms. SILBERMAN. There are slightly over 22,000 employees.

Senator BENNETT. So, 12 complaints out of 22,000 is really quite

an amazing record of accomplishment.

Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, yes, I think so. This is not a culture of

complaint we have found. On the other hand, we also think that

the law has worked as a deterrent and there has been widespread

compliance. That is why when we went to do this 102(b) report, the

Board was very careful to try and look to those areas in which we

thought that change was necessary. In general, I would like to reiterate again and again that the alternative dispute resolution system is really working and working well.

Senator BENNETT. I looked down this list of 12. There is only one

that says retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by the

CAA.

Ms. SILBERMAN. I think that that is a result of the fact that retaliation claims are seldom made if there is little hope of—the nature of the complaint is such that you have to provide the kind of

protection that will make it possible for those complaints to be

brought.

Senator BENNETT. Well, thank you very much. This is very interesting.

Ms. SILBERMAN. Thank you and thank you all again for your unfailing support.
116

Senator BENNETT. We appreciate it.

I do have one last question. It appears that the Office of the Architect of the Capitol has been a source of a number of complaints.

You have a Deputy Executive Director for the House and a Deputy

Executive Director for the Senate. Who is responsible for complaints when they do not come from either the House or the Senate?

Ms. TALKIN. I take on the Architect as well.

Senator BENNETT. You take on the Architect as well. [Laughter.]

Ms. TALKIN. As it were, that responsibility.

Senator BENNETT. I just wanted to make sure that it was not

falling between the cracks.

Ms. TALKIN. Not at all.

Ms. SILBERMAN. They represent the major number of complaints

that we get in all the areas. Of course, in the OSHA area, it is particularly true because they bear responsibility for the Senate and

the House and the buildings.

Thank you very much.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

The subcommittee is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 10:16 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(117)

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1999

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD–116, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH

SERVICE

MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS

WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES

RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN

LINDA WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES

KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY

HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES

FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE

FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

BEN BENITEZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES

JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES

KATHY A. WILLIAMS, BUDGET OFFICER

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to

order.

This is our third hearing on the Legislative Branch budget for

the fiscal year 2000. We will have one more hearing next Wednesday.

As it comes to no surprise to anyone, because of my interest in

the Y2K problem and area with respect to the Legislative Branch,

we may have additional hearings in April on that issue. It would

be very personally embarrassing to me if the rest of the govern-
118

ment were ready and the one area where I have some leverage in

the Legislative Branch were not ready.

So we are reserving the right to have another hearing in April

if it is necessary on that issue.

Our first panel this morning is the Library of Congress and the

Congressional Research Service, both of which are of great value

and importance to the Congress.

We welcome Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, Mr.

Dan Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional Research Service,

and General Scott, the Deputy Librarian of Congress. We are always happy to have you as well, sir.

BUDGET REQUEST

The Library is requesting $383.7 million in appropriated funds;

$33.1 million in authority to use receipts, which is a 5.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 model. Of that amount, $71.2 million is for the Congressional Research Service.

So we will hear a specific defense of those numbers from this

panel.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator Feinstein, do you have any opening comments?

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would ask to put those in the record, Mr.

Chairman. I look forward to the hearing.

Senator BENNETT. Without objection, it will be in the record.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses here today. This is the third

of our hearings on the fiscal year 2000 budget, and we have a very heavy agenda

this morning starting with the distinguished Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington,

who will testify along with his colleagues, Mr. Dan Mulhollan, the Director of the

Congressional Research Service, and Ms. Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights. The Library of Congress performs very valuable and important functions, not

only for the Legislative Branch in that it is Congress’ library—a vast storehouse of

materials and information that we use in the Congress—but it is also the world’s

largest and most comprehensive library. And, yet, the budget of the Library of Congress is very well managed. I note from materials that you provided, Dr. Billington,

that the Library has experienced a decline of 13 percent in full-time equivalent positions (FTE’s) since 1992. We look forward to receiving your testimony.

Following the Library, I also look forward to welcoming Mr. David Walker, the

Comptroller General of the United States, who is appearing before the subcommittee for the first time since his confirmation in November of last year. I note

that Mr. Walker is assuming the comptrollership from a very distinguished predecessor, Mr. Bowsher, who successfully negotiated a 25 percent, congressionally-mandated funding reduction over a two-year period, 1995–1997. I note that since 1992,

the FTE level at the General Accounting Office has decreased by 39 percent. So, I

also look forward to receiving the testimony of the Comptroller General.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on this busy morning, I join you in receiving the testimony on this year’s budget of the Government Printing Office from the Public Printer, Mike DiMario. GPO, as well, has been required to undertake cuts in its budget

in recent years, and I welcome the testimony of Mr. DiMario in support of his budget request.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Dr. Billington, we welcome you. We are glad

you are recovered from yesterday’s indisposition. We are delighted

to have you here.
119

OPENING REMARKS BY DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first present

my colleagues. This is the Deputy Librarian, General Donald Scott.

With me also are Winston Tabb, the Associate Librarian for Library Services; Rubens Medina, Law Librarian, Linda Washington,

Director of Integrated Support Services, Kenneth Lopez, Director of

Security, Herbert Becker, Director of Information Technology Services, Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, Daniel P.

Mulhollan, Director of the Congressional Research Service, Frank

Kurt Cylke, Director of the National Library Service for the Blind

and Physically Handicapped, Ben Benitez, Acting Director of

Human Resources Services, John Webster, Director of Financial

Services, and Kathy Williams, Budget Officer.

Senator BENNETT. You probably should not have done that because my businessman’s brain is immediately adding up the tab.

[Laughter.]

We welcome you all.

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and thank you for your continued support now and over

the years.

Let me briefly highlight a few points from my full statement, already submitted.

LIBRARY’S MISSION

The Library of Congress is a totally unique institution with its

national mission to serve the Congress and to facilitate the creative

use of the world’s knowledge for the good of our Nation.

Fiscal year 2000 is a milestone year for the Library, which will

be 200 years old on April 24, 2000. It is the oldest Federal cultural

institution and the largest and most diverse collection of knowledge

ever assembled in one place.

By creating it, sustaining it, and using it, and by mandating it

to serve other libraries and the Nation, as well as the Congress,

the Congress of the United States has been, quite simply, the

greatest patron of libraries in world history.

The world of libraries is rapidly changing in the electronic age,

and the Library of Congress is both leading and embracing this

change in order to sustain its central role in America’s unique system of providing free public access to knowledge.

The Library is now not only offering access here on Capitol Hill

to objects containing knowledge, but also has become a leading provider of free electronic information for citizens in every State—

functioning 24 hours per day, receiving 3.5 million electronic transactions every working day.

We are in the midst of a dramatic transition from just receiving,

processing, and serving primarily artifactual materials—this is to

say, paper books and serials, films and tapes—to also receiving and

serving the rapidly increasing number of materials that are available only in digital form.

This chart (indicating) illustrates this dual function, with physical objects only on this side (indicating) and digital objects that are

available everywhere throughout the Nation.
120

LIBRARY’S CHALLENGES

We have embraced the leadership challenge of blending the rapidly emerging electronic network with the still expanding traditional book culture. The world’s production of books increased more

than 6 percent last year, even as this electronic explosion was occurring.

But we are also receiving and serving this material in digital

form in order to better serve the Congress and the Nation.

We have two key current overriding initiatives for meeting our

strategic objectives, as illustrated here (indicating): providing massive digital access to information and, at the same time, streamlining and reengineering our handling of access to books and other

traditional containers of knowledge.

The three initiatives for which we are requesting added funding

in this budget year are those that clearly help us meet both of

these key objectives, that is to say, both the digital objective and

the reengineering of traditional functions—the global legal network, the Electronic Copyright Office, and the electronic resources

for storing so that we can retrieve digital collections. These contribute to both of these overriding objectives.

While we have been the national leader in digitizing major archival collections for free educational use throughout the country, now

we must develop an electronic repository of hardware and software

for efficient storage and retrieval of digital materials originating

elsewhere so that we can answer the questions that will come from

the Congress and from the Nation about materials only available

in those forms.

Our ultimate goals are, again, as illustrated in this chart (indicating), are to provide usable knowledge in all formats that support

the Congress and democratic government as well as memory and

information resources for all Americans, especially for young people

for educational purposes in their local communities, and, finally, to

provide seamless one-step knowledge navigation in a secure electronic environment.

So that is our future, as we see it, and our Digital Futures Task

Force is now at work to draw up a blueprint for the electronic part

of the Library’s future.

LIBRARY’S BICENTENNIAL

The Bicentennial Year—next year—of the Library will be a decisive time for developing integrated, automated systems and for initiating staff succession programs in order to sustain and enhance

the Library’s critical role as a trusted knowledge navigator for Congress and the Nation.

The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget supports the Library’s mission and strategic plan which chart our course into an increasingly

electronic future.

Libraries being a link in this human chain that connects what

happened yesterday and what is recorded almost exclusively in

book and traditional form with what might take place tomorrow,

they must not only include but also bring together traditional and

digitized materials.
121

BUDGET REQUEST

The Library’s budget request totals $383.7 million in net appro- priations and $33.1 million in authority to use receipts, representing a net increase of 5.5 percent, or $20 million, over fiscal

year 1999. Most of this increase—83 percent, in fact, or $16.6 million—is

needed simply to fund mandatory pay raises driven largely by the

January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent and unavoidable price level

increases. The other $3.4 million of the $20 million total increase

is needed to meet critical growing workload increases net of program decreases, which are also considerable this year.

The Library has 591 fewer actual FTEs than in 1992. We are

doing a great deal more work. Moreover, we must hire and begin

mentoring skilled professionals to replace our very large number of

expected retirees. About 45 percent of our staff will be eligible to

retire by the year 2004.

The Library will be severely strained in the years ahead by the

need for large-scale personnel training and replacement in what

are often one-of-a-kind jobs. The Library will be further stretched

by its necessary commitment both to sustain traditional services

and to effect our transition into the electronic world.

So we ask the committee’s support so that the Library may head

into the 21st Century with both expanded digital holdings and with

the systems in place to maximize service for the Congress and to

all Americans in their local communities.

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Mr. Chairman, each of you has a packet of materials providing

further information about the Library. My colleagues and I will

welcome any questions that you may ask.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Fiscal year 2000 is a milestone year for the Library of Congress—a Year of Great

Celebration and Transition. On April 24, 2000, the Library will be 200 years old,

the oldest Federal cultural institution in the country. By creating and sustaining the

world’s largest and most diverse collection of knowledge and mandating it to serve

other libraries and the nation, the Congress of the United States has been quite

simply the greatest patron of libraries in history.

The Congress has continued to support the Library’s traditional services as well

as its new leadership role in delivering free electronic information to the nation. The

Library’s Internet site now receives more than three million electronic transactions

every working day. This phenomenal usage nearly doubles that of the previous year.

The Library’s mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection

of knowledge and creativity. To fulfill this mission, the Library has amassed an unparalleled collection of more than 115 million items, a superbly knowledgeable staff,

and cost-effective networks for gathering the world’s knowledge for the nation’s

good.

People and institutions in the information world are facing historic challenges.

The world of librarians and libraries is rapidly changing, and the Library of Congress is both leading and embracing change to sustain its role as a trusted knowledge navigator and pathfinder for America’s unique system of providing free public

access to usable information. We are making the transition from a model of receiving, processing, and serving primarily artifactual materials (e.g., paper books and

serials, films and tapes) to a model of also receiving, processing, and serving the

rapidly increasing number of materials available only in digital form (see attachment #1). We are also making the transition from a model of primarily serving peo-
122

ple over age 18 who use our collections in our reading rooms in Washington, D.C.,

to a model of serving people electronically everywhere, regardless of age—and contributing directly to K–12 education with the American Memory/National Digital Library program.

The Bicentennial of the Library in fiscal year 2000 will be a decisive time for developing integrated automated systems and for initiating staff succession programs

to sustain and enhance the Library’s critical role as a trusted knowledge navigator

for the Congress and the nation. The Library’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget supports the Library’s mission and strategic plan, which charts our course into an increasingly electronic future. Libraries are a link in the human chain that connects

what happened yesterday with what might take place tomorrow; they are the base

camps for new discovery in the Information Age; they must include and integrate

both traditional and digitized materials.

The Library’s budget request totals $383.7 million in net appropriations and $33.1

million in authority to use receipts—a net increase of 5.5 percent ($20 million) over

fiscal 1999. Most of this increase ($16.6 million) is needed simply to fund mandatory

pay raises (driven largely by the January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent) and unavoidable price-level increases; $3.4 million (of the $20 million total increase) is

needed to meet critical growing workload increases (net of program decreases).

Growing workload decreases total $8.25 million, including a $4.8 million decrease

resulting from higher copyright fee receipts, a $2.25 million decrease resulting from

two no-year projects (i.e., Meeting of the Frontiers and Lewis and Clark Bicentennial) that were funded in fiscal 1999, and a $1.2 million decrease resulting from a

planned reduction in the Integrated Library System project costs.

Growing workload increases totaling $11.6 million are offset by the decreases of

$8.25 million which result in a net increase of $3.4 million. Major increases include:

$4.8 million for automation building blocks; $1.6 million for a staff succession program; $1.4 million for improved collections security; $.7 million for the Copyright

registration process (funded by receipts); $.7 million for the Law Library; $1.5 million for a multi-year James Madison building workstation modernization project;

and $.3 million for operational funding of the National Audio-visual Conservation

Center.

EARLY HISTORY

The Library of Congress is a living monument to the remarkable wisdom of the

Founding Fathers who saw access to an ever-expanding body of knowledge as essential to a dynamic democracy. The Library’s three buildings are named for Thomas

Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. With the support of these Presidents,

the Congress established the Library in 1800 as soon as it moved to the new capital

city of Washington and established the Joint Committee on the Library as the first

Joint Committee of the Congress in 1802.

Jefferson, in particular, took a keen interest in the new institution. After the British burned the Capitol and the Library during the War of 1812, Congress accepted

Jefferson’s offer to ‘‘recommence’’ the Library and purchase his multi-lingual 6,487-

volume collection (then the finest in America) at a price of $23,950. It contained volumes in many languages on everything from architecture to geography and the

sciences. Anticipating the argument that his collection might seem too wide-ranging

for Congress, Jefferson said that there was ‘‘no subject to which a Member of Congress might not have occasion to refer.’’

Jefferson’s ideals of a ‘‘universal’’ collection and of sharing knowledge as widely

as possible still guide the Library. With Congressional blessing and support, the Library has grown to serve the Congress and the nation more broadly in ways that

no other library has ever done—largely as a result of four milestone laws: (1) the

copyright law of 1870, which stipulated that two copies of every book, pamphlet,

map, print, photograph, and piece of music registered for copyright in the United

States be deposited in the Library; (2) the 1886 authorization of the first separate

Library of Congress building that contained openly accessible reading rooms and exhibition space for the general public; (3) the 1902 law that authorized the Library

to sell its cataloging records inexpensively to the nation’s libraries and thus massively help to subsidize the entire American library system; and (4) the law in 1931

that established the program in the Library to create and supply free library materials to blind and physically handicapped readers throughout the country. Congress

thus established the basis both for the continued growth of the collections and for

the extension of the Library’s services to citizens everywhere.

In 1914, Congress created the Legislative Reference Service (LRS) as a separate

entity within the Library of Congress to provide specialized services to ‘‘Congress

and committees and Members thereof.’’ In 1946, the Congress granted LRS further
123

statutory status within the Library and directed it to employ specialists to cover

broad subject areas. Congress renamed the LRS the Congressional Research Service

(CRS) in 1970 and enhanced its analytical capabilities by defining its policy role for

the Congress and emphasizing research support to the committees of Congress.

More recently, a series of Congressional statutes have created within the Library

of Congress the American Folklife Center (1976), the American Television and Radio

Archives (1976), the National Center for the Book (1977), the National Film Preservation Board (1988), and the National Film Preservation Foundation (1996)—further extending the Library of Congress’ national role.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TODAY

The core of the Library is its incomparable collections—and the specialists who

interpret and share them. The Library’s 115 million items cover more than 530

miles of shelf space and include almost all media through which knowledge and creativity are preserved and communicated.

The Library has more than 27 million volumes, including 5,700 volumes printed

before the year 1500; 12 million photographs; 4 million maps, old and new; 2 million

audio recordings; 800,000 motion pictures, including the earliest movies ever made;

4 million pieces of music; 50 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. Recent acquisitions, to name a few, include:

papers of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg covering her career before

appointment to the Court; an addition of 2,000 items to the papers of Supreme

Court Justice William J. Brennan; a collection of 500,000 items of Pamela Harriman, diplomat and political figure; the Martha Graham Archives, documenting the

contribution of this pioneer in American dance; 32,000 papers of poet Edna St. Vincent Millay; additional organizational papers to collections already at the Library

of the National Urban League and NAACP National and Washington Bureau; a

large addition to the papers of architect I.M. Pei; sixty drawings of Pat Oliphant,

the political cartoonist; text, images, and audio files representing a full ‘‘snapshot’’

of the public World Wide Web (some 500,000 Websites) donated by Brewster Kahle,

President and Founder of Alexa Internet; three rare portraits of Georgia O’Keeffe

by master photographer Alfred Stieglitz; and a Map of Philadelphia from 1752 with

the first illustration of Independence Hall.

Every workday the Library’s staff adds approximately 10,000 new items to the

collections, after organizing and cataloging them, and finds ways to share them with

the Congress and the nation—through on-line access across the nation, through inperson access in the Library’s reading rooms, and through cultural programs that

feature the Library’s collections and reach across the country.

Major annual services include delivering more than 530,000 congressional research responses and services, processing more than 640,000 copyright claims, cataloging nearly 300,000 books and serials, and circulating more than 22 million audio

and braille books and magazines to blind and physically handicapped individuals all

across America. 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 of

Congress programs and activities are funded by four salaries and expenses (S&E)

appropriations, which support congressional services, national library services, copyright administration, library services to blind and physically handicapped people,

and management support. A separate appropriation funds furniture and furnishings.

AUTOMATION BUILDING BLOCKS

The Library is putting in place automation building blocks that will ensure a solid

foundation for continuing into the next century its historic leadership role of delivering information services to the Congress and the Nation, setting bibliographic

standards (saving libraries hundreds of millions of dollars by supplying them with

bibliographic data), and providing free electronic access to knowledge and information for life-long learners everywhere.

Key automation building blocks for the future include:

Integrated Library System (ILS).—The ILS is scheduled to be operational at the

beginning of fiscal year 2000 and will change the work patterns for more than half

the Library’s staff. The fiscal year 2000 budget incorporates a planned decrease of

$1,197,000 (from $3,544,000 to $2,347,000), which is $270,000 less of a decrease

than projected two years ago in the original budget because of higher software

maintenance costs. The ILS will coordinate and make more efficient all the Library’s
124

basic functions, such as acquisitions, cataloging, and research and loan services but

will require a major redirection of resources to implement. As a result, the Library

projects a slight short-term increase in its arrearage during fiscal years 1999 and

2000. The Library expects that any major savings from the ILS would begin to accrue at the end of fiscal year 2000 and begin appearing in the Library’s fiscal year

2001 budget.

Electronic Resources Information Project.—An important phase of the transition to

an increasingly electronic future is the development of an approach to handling digital materials. The Library is requesting a fiscal 2000 increase of $964,764 for an

initiative that consists of two parts: (1) a three-year project, at $520,836 per year,

to develop and implement policies and procedures and the access management system necessary for incorporating into its collections and services the electronic products the Library acquires from others via copyright deposit, gift and purchase; and

(2) a permanent base increase of $443,928 to fund the technical staff necessary to

support the handling of electronic services in the custodial divisions. Just as the National Digital Library Program provided national leadership for the transition to a

digital environment through conversion of archival materials delivered on the Internet, the Electronic Resources Information Project will provide leadership in the integration of material in electronic form into our traditional operations with books and

other hard copy materials. This effort is a necessary initial step and a key part of

the comprehensive plan for integrating all digital collections.

Global Legal Information Network (GLIN).—GLIN is a cooperative international

network in which nations are contributing electronically the full, authentic text of

statutes and regulations to a database hosted by the Law Library of Congress.

GLIN is the digital future of the Law Library, and an increase of $396,000 is requested to support GLIN’s expanding from 12 to approximately 30 countries by the

year 2004: an addition of three to four countries per year. The Library plans to use

receipts provided by participants and sponsors of GLIN to help support GLIN development, but these receipts will not be sufficient to ensure success until a critical

mass of countries is achieved.

Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit System

(CORDS).—CORDS is the electronic future of the Copyright Office and provides the

public with an electronic means to submit copyright claims and documents which

streamline internal processing. Development, as well as testing, will continue

through successive phases with an increasing number of electronic registrations

over the Internet. In the year 2004, the Library expects to receive at least 100,000

works (out of a total of more than 700,000 works) in digital form—such as census

data, films, music, encyclopedias, scientific papers, and legal documents. An increase of $143,988 (funded by receipts) is requested to expand the CORDS system

into new formats, provide on-line customer support, support increasing digital storage needs, and enhance technical capabilities.

Automation Infrastructure Support.—An increase of $3,250,000 is requested to

fund automation infrastructure support items: (1) $1.9 million to upgrade the Library’s digital voice switch, which has been in operation for more than a decade and

will not be able to support the Library’s growing telecommunications requirements

in the 21st century; (2) $600,000 to increase computer server storage and capacity,

which is necessary to meet the growing demand of the millions of transactions processed daily; (3) $500,000 to fund additional security and disaster recovery measures,

which are becoming increasingly critical with the growth of on-line systems; and (4)

$250,000 to support the first phase of a central financial management system replacement project.

The Library is undertaking an institution-wide planning effort to coordinate these

building blocks and other digital initiatives in order to provide the most effective

information services for the 21st century. The Library is also seeking advice and

counsel from the National Academy of Sciences as part of our planning process. The

overall transition to modern electronic services Library-wide will be a multi-phase,

multi-year process (see attachment #2). Re-engineering traditional functions and

adding digital content are critical elements of the planning (see attachment #3).

Fiscal year 2000 marks the end of the initial five-year National Digital Library

(NDL) program, and the Library will present, in next year’s budget, its plans for

the future of our digital programs. The highly successful NDL program serves as

a catalyst for institutional change, in addition to making possible access by millions

of Americans to the Library’s vast holdings. A recent PC Magazine review of the

Top 100 Websites stated: ‘‘We’ve raved about The Library of Congress for years, and

it just keeps getting better.’’ We plan to build on our successful five-year NDL program to ensure public availability of additional high-quality content.

With regard to the Library’s Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness for automated operations,

the Library has identified 99 mission critical systems and is on-schedule for making
125

these systems Y2K compliant by September 30, 1999 (see attachment #4). The General Accounting Office conducts regular reviews of our progress in reaching Y2K

compliant automated operations and reports quarterly to the Congress on our

progress.

SUCCESSION PROGRAM

The Library’s ability to serve Congress and the nation depends in large part on

its expert staff, particularly those who have intimate familiarity with the special collections or fluency in foreign languages. In 1996, Library Services undertook an

analysis of its vulnerability to retirements and determined that by fiscal year 2004

50 percent (1,077) of its staff would be eligible for retirement. An additional concern

is the need to provide upward mobility opportunities for motivated technicians who

have demonstrated their ability to move into professional positions. To respond simultaneously to both of these needs, the Library requests $1,010,016 to initiate a

cost-effective Library Services Career Enhancement and Succession Plan that will

give existing staff opportunities to advance to critical professional positions while

also enabling the Library to recruit a new corps of junior technicians. Without the

additional funding for technician positions, our newly promoted (and higher paid)

curators will be forced to devote time to technician-level assignments, which would

not be a cost-effective use of resources.

The Congressional Research Service faces a similar challenge. One-half of CRS’

staff of analysts, attorneys and reference librarians will be eligible to retire by the

year 2006. To address this challenge, CRS began a research capacity risk assessment process in 1996 and identified the specific subject areas where staff were likely

to retire in the next few years. CRS foresees reduced analytic capacity in a significant number of subject areas as early as the year 2000; these losses will accelerate

and affect almost every area of legislative support to the Congress by 2004. Rebuilding this capacity requires a multi-year learning period during which new staff develop the breadth and depth of knowledge of the specific issues as well as of the

legislative process. To meet these challenges, CRS has developed a multi-year plan

to begin hiring replacement staff. In fiscal 1999, the Congress provided $435,858 to

begin this hiring process, using the Graduate Recruit Program and the Law Recruit

Program. The fiscal 2000 request seeks $559,052 to continue to hire staff to ensure

the continuity of services to the Congress, while remaining within the full-time

equivalent level provided in the fiscal 1999 budget.

SECURITY OF LIBRARY STAFF, COLLECTIONS AND FACILITIES

During 1998, the Library’s House and Senate oversight committees approved our

comprehensive Security Plan, and the Congress approved supplemental appropriations totaling $16,975,000 for the Library’s physical security. These two Congressional actions provide a framework for the security of the Library’s collections, facilities, staff, visitors and other assets. As a result, additional security measures will

be put in place during fiscal years 1999 and 2000: the recruitment of additional police, the installation of entry screening equipment at all public entrances, the design

and installation of additional perimeter security enhancements, and the design and

development of an improved intrusion detection system. The Library is working

with the Capitol Police and the Architect of the Capitol to complete a memorandum

of understanding, which will ensure proper coordination of all security efforts.

The supplemental appropriations in fiscal 1999 did not provide additional funds

for collections physical security initiatives. Thus, for the fiscal year 2000 budget, the

Library is requesting an increase of $1,352,201 to support three key collections security enhancements.

Reader Registration.—The Library’s Security Plan specifies, as a minimum standard, the identification of all patrons requesting material from the collections. The

Library is requesting an increase of $466,791 to implement this minimum standard

in all reading rooms.

Marking and Tagging Library Materials.—The Library’s Security Plan specifies,

as a minimum standard, the marking and tagging of most material. The Congress

approved and funded the marking and tagging of materials received via copyright

deposit starting in fiscal 1999, and the Library requests $476,378 to expand marking and tagging to other sources of acquisitions (i.e., gifts, exchanges, purchases).

Contract Security Monitors.—The Library is requesting an increase of $370,188 to

improve the enforcement of security standards by placing security monitors in five

additional reading rooms where unique materials often of great value are used—

Law, Geography and Map, Music, Prints and Photographs, and Rare Book and Special Collections. Contract security monitors are now used in the Manuscript and

Main reading rooms to ensure that each patron is registered, enforce personal be-
126

longings restrictions, monitor the activities of visitors, and examine materials being

removed. The Library asks that this successful program be expanded to these five

additional important reading rooms.

LAW LIBRARY

The Law Library of Congress maintains the largest collection of legal materials

in the world and also houses a unique body of foreign-trained lawyers to supply

legal research and analysis, primarily for the Congress, on the laws of other nations,

international law, and comparative law. More than 200 jurisdictions are covered by

Law Library specialists, some 80 percent of the sovereign entities of the world that

issue laws and regulations. The Law Library utilizes this talent to maintain and develop the breadth and depth of a demanding collection, as well as to provide reference services whenever either chamber is in session (as mandated by the Congress). These are daunting responsibilities. The U.S. Courts, the executive branch,

and the legal community also depend heavily on the Law Library’s collections.

The Law Library has been creative in attempting to meet its responsibilities, particularly with the development of its Global Legal Information Network, but funding

for 8.5 FTE’s ($548,852) is crucially required. The funding would ensure adequate

staffing for research and reference services, improve the security of the rare book

room collections, and improve book retrieval services. The Law Library is also requesting $188,250 for contractual services to maintain the filing of looseleaf inserts.

The integrity and currency of legal publications—which contain laws, administrative

rules and regulations, and legal interpretations—must be maintained to be of continuing value to the Congress.

COPYRIGHT OFFICE

The Library’s Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective copyright protection—annually processing more than 650,000 claims (representing more than

850,000 copies of works transferred to the Library) of which 550,000 claims are registered for copyright. The Copyright Office also responds annually to more than

395,000 requests for information.

On July 1, 1999, the Copyright Office plans to increase its filing fees and other

statutory fee services. The new schedule of proposed fees was presented to the Congress for consideration at the beginning of February. The basic filing fee for registering a claim will increase from $20 to $30, and other statutory fees, such as

those for filing renewals or recording a document, will also increase. These increases, coupled with the fee changes for special services which went into effect July

1, 1998, represent increases in some cases of as much as 225 percent. We expect

fee increases to boost the Office’s receipts by $4.8 million in fiscal year 2000. The

new fee structure should provide 70 percent cost recovery for registration, recordation and related services. The Register’s statement provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed increase.

The ability of the Copyright Office to serve the nation effectively requires restructuring and streamlining operations. The Library requests approval to use part of the

additional receipts ($694,212) to redesign the workflow and to bolster its core staff

of examiners, which will ensure the timely processing of claims for registration. To

improve public service, efficiency, security, cash management, and contain costs, the

Copyright Office must redesign its workflow and hire additional examiners.

The Library also requests authority to use part of the additional receipts to fund

further growth of the CORDS effort ($143,988, see automation building blocks) and

to fund newly imposed storage costs ($268,204) levied by the National Archives and

Records Administration.

NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

The Library administers a 67-year-old cooperative effort with state and local agencies and the United States Postal Service to provide free braille and recorded materials for blind and physically handicapped persons. The Library selects and produces

full-length books and magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette and

provides special playback equipment. We distribute reading materials and playback

machines to a network of cooperating regional and subregional (local) libraries, who

circulate those materials to eligible borrowers and returned to libraries by postagefree mail.

The fiscal year 2000 budget maintains program services by funding mandatory

pay and price level increases totaling $1,209,000. The budget also supports the exploration of alternative digital technological possibilities that would provide a less

costly, more efficient, internationally acceptable, user-friendly delivery system.
127

LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library’s buildings and grounds. In coordination

with the Library, the AOC has requested a capital budget of $9,405,000, an increase

of $6,238,000. The AOC capital budget includes funding for six projects totaling

$6,350,000 in appropriations, that were requested by the Library. Library-requested

projects, as well as AOC identified projects, are prioritized based on critical need

and in accordance with both the Library’s Strategic and Security Plans. The six

projects support four important areas: (1) the security of our collections by providing

additional electronic card readers, alarm devices, and other protections ($1,400,000);

(2) the preservation of the Library’s collections as a result of improved environmental conditions for exhibit space ($450,000); (3) the support for and oversight of

initial construction efforts at the National Audio-visual Conservation Center

($500,000); and (4) the acquisition of additional storage space by funding a second

collections storage module at Fort Meade, Maryland ($4,000,000). Properly storing

the Library’s collections in secure, safe, and environmentally sound facilities is the

most important step toward preserving our collections for future generations.

I urge the Committee to support the Architect’s Library Buildings and Grounds

budget and his position that reinvestment in the existing infrastructure is necessary

and a prudent measure for the long-term support of legislative branch operations.

AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER

The Library’s House and Senate oversight committees have approved a Master

Plan option for the renovation of the National Audio-visual Conservation Center in

Culpeper, Virginia, which provides for the donor to retain ownership of the center

through Phase I (2001). As a result, the Library requests an increase of $290,000

to fund fiscal 2000 operating costs, which are estimated to be $509,000. When ownership of the Center is transferred to the AOC, these operating costs will be reallocated between the AOC and the Library, in accordance with normal Library Buildings and Grounds budget practices. In August 1998, the Library began to store film

at the center.

NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

The Library is requesting an increase of $250,000 to fund the government’s

matching grant in accordance with section 209 of Public Law 104–285. To date, the

National Film Preservation Foundation has received pledges totaling $1.2 million

($500,000 in actual receipts) from private persons and State and local governments.

The $250,000 increase would fund the government’s matching share and support the

preservation of our film heritage.

JAMES MADISON BUILDING WORKSTATION MODERNIZATION PROJECT

The Library is requesting an increase of $1,528,000 to begin a five-year accelerated workstation modernization project in the James Madison building. We have replaced employee workstations in the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams buildings

with modern furniture and equipment as a result of the renovation project. Furniture and equipment installed 20 years ago in the James Madison building, during

an era of typewriters and long before the introduction of personal computers, must

now be replaced to provide for ergonomically correct workstations in all three of the

Library’s Capitol Hill buildings. Poor workstation design contributes to the risk of

injuries and lower staff productivity. An increase is required to complete the project

within five years instead of the 16 plus years the current level of resources would

require.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

During the 105th Congress, the Library’s oversight and Appropriations Committees agreed upon authorizing legislation for the American Folklife Center (AFC) and

the National Audio-visual Conservation Center. The Library is moving expeditiously

to secure all appointments to the AFC board and to realize the master plan for the

Culpeper site approved last December. During the last Congress, we also secured

legislation for a commemorative coin to be issued in April 2000 in observance of the

Library’s Bicentennial. In discussing the Library’s plans for its Bicentennial with

our oversight committees, we stressed the continuing need for the Library to have

improved statutory authority for its revolving and reimbursable funds. The 105th

Congress approved a revolving fund to improve the accountability and statutory

basis for the Cooperative Acquisitions Program. We will be seeking similar authority

during this Congress to address the business operating needs of the Federal Re-
128

search Division and FEDLINK, each of which serves a wide constituency within the

Federal government. The bill is our top legislative priority for the 106th Congress.

Passage of such legislation would address a critical element of our five-year legislative plan to improve and stabilize the Library’s business operations.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Library requests an increase of $139,343 to fund two professional auditors

in the Office of the Inspector General. The two auditors would concentrate on reviews of the Library’s physical security and automated systems, both areas of critical importance to our operations.

LIBRARY’S BICENTENNIAL

The Library will use its Bicentennial in the year 2000 less to celebrate our past

than to leave a legacy for the future. We have crafted—almost entirely with privately raised funds—a multi-faceted Bicentennial Program ‘‘to inspire creativity in

the years ahead by stimulating greater use of the Library of Congress and libraries

everywhere.’’ Bicentennial projects include: reconstituting Thomas Jefferson’s original library through private donations; a ‘‘Favorite Poem’’ project spearheaded by the

Library’s Poet Laureate; a national photography contest, ‘‘Beyond Words: Celebrating America’s Libraries,’’ jointly conducted with the American Library Association; and a ‘‘Local Legacies’’ project to document unique local traditions from congressional districts throughout the nation for possible inclusion in the American

Folklife Center’s collections.

The kick-off event later this year for the Bicentennial will be a symposium on the

Frontiers of the Mind in the 21st Century, which will bring together at the Library

leading thinkers in various disciplines to talk about the way their field will change

in the 21st century. The concept of ‘‘Gifts to the Nation’’ is central to the Bicentennial effort. The Library itself is a Congressional ‘‘Gift to the Nation.’’ Sharing the

Library’s collections and information about the Congress with Americans in their

local communities through an expanded National Digital Library is the Library’s

major gift to the nation.

SUMMARY

The Library’s budget request for fiscal year 2000—a net increase of 5.5 percent

over fiscal 1999 or $20 million—supports the building blocks for realizing our strategic priorities. Most of this increase ($16.6 million) is needed to fund mandatory

pay raises (driven largely by the January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent) and unavoidable price-level increases.

By funding the Library’s fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Congress would support the major transition of staff and operations that must take place to permit the

Library to head into the 21st century with the foundation in place to provide the

maximum service to the Congress and to its constituents.

For fiscal year 2000, we submit a budget request that will enable the Library of

Congress to continue to make major contributions to the work of the Congress and

to the creative life of the American people.
129

[Attachment 1]

[Attachment 2]
130

[Attachment 3]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYBETH PETERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity

to present the budget request of the Copyright Office for fiscal year 2000. For more

than 100 years the role of the Office has been one of leadership in the establishment

of U.S. copyright policy and service to the nation. The record has been one of solid

achievement, and this year is no different.

During fiscal year 1998, the Copyright Office continued to advise the Congress on

national and international issues and provided valuable assistance to the United

States Trade Representative and other executive branch agencies.

It also continued to create and maintain the on-line catalog of copyright and mask

work registrations and recorded documents, to administer the various compulsory

licenses and statutory obligations, to further the effort to create a workable automated registration, recordation and deposit system, and to offer technical, legal, and

educational assistance in the international arena.

The Copyright Office’s public services include, responding to copyright information

and reference requests in person, over the telephone, through written correspondence, and electronically through the Web; producing and supplying Copyright Office

forms, circulars, studies, regulations, and other publications in paper and digital format; maintaining a 24-hour forms hotline and fax delivery service; providing up-todate information digitally via the Copyright Office Website and through an electronic mailing list.

In fiscal year 1998, the Office processed 644,639 claims, representing over 800,000

works, registered 558,645 claims, representing more than 700,000 works, recorded

14,368 documents, that included more than 250,000 titles, and responded to 395,456

information requests. It transferred to the Library approximately 850,000 copies of

works at a value of $26,991,775. The Office collected $15,559,001 for registration,

recordation and related services and approximately $217,000,000 in royalty fees for

compulsory licenses.

Fiscal Year 1999 Focus

In fiscal year 1999, the Copyright Office will focus on five activities: Maintaining

and enhancing the policy role of the Copyright Office in domestic and international

copyright matters; continuing the development, testing, and implementation of the

Copyright Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System (CORDS); improving the efficiency and timeliness in registration processing and in providing
131

copyright reference and information services; enhancing the security of copyright deposits and records through the application of anti-theft devices to the collections and

the adoption of other measures; and implementing Copyright Office fee setting legislation.

Policy Role

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted on October 28, 1998, supports and enhances the policy role of the Copyright Office in domestic and international copyright matters. The DMCA resulted in the most extensive changes to

Copyright Law since the general revision in 1976. It was the result of nearly two

years of intensive activity in the Congress, and the Copyright Office was privileged

to work extensively with committees in both the House and Senate throughout the

legislative process.

Not only did the Copyright Office play a significant role in advising the Congress

on matters relating to the DMCA, but the Act itself ensured that the Office will continue to play a leading role in copyright policy in the future. Section 401 of the Act

confirms the authority of the Copyright Office to carry out the policy and international functions that it has carried out under more general statutory language for

many years.

On several of the substantive issues addressed in the DMCA the affected parties

were very far apart, requiring Congress to craft a number of delicate compromises.

One of these compromises establishes a new important and difficult activity for the

Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights—an ongoing administrativerulemaking proceeding to evaluate the impact of the law’s new prohibition on circumventing technologies that protect works from unauthorized access to determine

whether users of ‘‘particular class[es] of works’’ would be hindered in their ability

to make noninfringing uses of such works by virtue of the new anti-circumvention

rules. If so, the Librarian, upon recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, will

exempt such persons from the ban on acts of circumvention.

There were a number of issues that were not ripe for resolution in the DMCA.

Several matters under consideration—from distance education to encryption research—required further study. All six of those studies will be carried out either

under the auspices of the Copyright Office or with the Office’s participation within

the next two years.

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

In fiscal year 1999 the Office will continue the development, testing, and implementation of CORDS, which, when fully developed, will allow all Internet users to

submit electronically claims to copyright, copies of copyrighted works, and documents such as assignments and licenses.

CORDS has no other prototypes available to build on; it is breaking totally new

ground, and is doing so in a rapidly changing technical environment. It involves the

use of many new technologies emerging with the growth of the Internet, including

applying digital signature technology that authenticates the source and integrity of

communications with far more depth of reliability and security built into it than

basic FTP (file transfer protocol) or Email communications-based systems.

In January 1999, the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office signed a landmark cooperative agreement with UMI that enables electronic submission of applications and deposits of doctoral dissertations and master’s theses. This historic

agreement also makes UMI the first partner to submit large numbers of copyright

claims (20,000 annually, 400 per week) electronically through CORDS, which will

be processed online.

In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Copyright Office requests funding for

(1) hiring one automation specialist (GS–13) and (2) increasing digital storage capability for CORDS. This will permit the Office to receive and process an increasing

number of claims electronically at a substantial savings in staff time and physical

storage space.

Registration Operations

The Copyright Office’s goal is timely, quality service. Throughput time is a major

concern to the copyright community. Despite valiant efforts by supervisors and staff,

registration has gone from the norm of six to eight weeks in 1993 to six to eight

months today. This is clearly unacceptable. Annually, we process approximately

650,000 claims to copyright covering more than 800,000 works and more than

1,000,000 deposit copies per year, received with a fee in most cases, to be processed

and routed through many stations in a function-based operation. At the end of fiscal

year 1993, the Office had an inventory of 30,000 registration claims to be processed.

Normal on-hand ranges for claims to be examined have historically been 30,000 to

45,000.
132

Beginning in fall 1993, the examiner staff began to decline because of retirements,

buyouts, budgetary constraints, and resignations. Over the next three years, the Examining division lost 26 FTE’s, or 38 percent, of its examiner staff. Hiring freezes

caused by the Copyright Office budget constraints, and the development of the new

Library of Congress hiring system prevented the Office from replacing examiners

until 1997. Today, there are 52 examiners on staff, only 80 percent of 1993 levels.

To compensate for reduced staff, the Examining Division has held facilitative sessions with staff, offered overtime, cross-trained and utilized staff from other divisions, initiated the use of email and fax correspondence with applicants, streamlined

correspondence with frequent applicants, networked correspondence preparation,

and initiated better use of technician staff to process uncomplicated claims.

Although these measures are effective in reducing more backsliding, they are not

sufficient to recoup the losses. Sixteen new examiners have been hired and are becoming productive; however, the arrearage remains at 125,000 claims. While the division may be able to hold the arrearage at the current level when the new hires

are fully trained, there are not enough examiners to reduce the backlog and achieve

currency.

To build a cadre of copyright examiners sufficient to ensure the issuance of timely

copyright registration certificates will require the funding to hire eight additional

examiners (GS–7) which is requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget.

We are also seeking authority to reimburse the National Records Center ($268,204) for storage of Copyright Office records.

Restructuring the Registration Process in Fiscal Year 2000

To effectively serve the public and the copyright community in the new Millennium, the Copyright Office must restructure and streamline the registration and

recordation processes. Funding for this effort is included in the fiscal year 2000

budget request. Restructuring will improve public service, enhance operational efficiency and security, contain costs, respond to the need to acquire and process works

fixed in new formats, and meet the demands of the copyright community for a reduction in the claims arrearage and the speedier processing of claims.

This initiative entails: hiring eight additional copyright examiners (GS–7) to

achieve and maintain currency in registration of copyright claims and one automation specialist (GS–13) and increasing digital storage capability for CORDS, as stated earlier; hiring a project manager, (GS–15) NTE 5 years, who is an expert in

Copyright Office procedures, to oversee and coordinate the restructuring project

throughout the planning and implementation phases, work with the contractors,

head up a task force of Copyright Office staff, communicate with and collect input

from management, staff, unions, and customers, and evaluate the statutory impact,

if any, of restructuring; and hiring a consultant to conduct a process redesign study

to develop and implement a restructuring plan for the Office’s major registration

processing operations and associated functions to enhance operational efficiency and

reduce handling of materials.

There are numerous benefits to restructuring the registration process. The value

of our records is greatest when up-to-date information on new works is expeditiously

made available to the public. Increased staff and more efficient operations will maximize the timeliness of additions to and public accessibility of our records. Office restructuring and electronic filing via CORDS for a growing percentage of applicants

are needed to maintain reasonable operating costs in future years and keep user

fees, which are based on cost, from escalating to levels unacceptable to the Congress

and beyond the means of copyright owners, particularly individual authors. Restructuring will permit better control over material and result in fewer opportunities for

misplacement and pilferage. Increasing the use of electronic filing via CORDS will

reduce the quantity of materials that require physical handling and storage.

Security Program

The Library of Congress has embarked on a major security effort with regard to

its collections. The Copyright Office with the Library of Congress has developed a

multi-year plan to improve security. In fiscal year 1998, the Copyright Office conducted five Risk Assessments, that identified control weaknesses and developed

plans of action to reduce our vulnerability. In fiscal year 1999, the Copyright Office

began implementing these plans. Additionally, the Office received fiscal year 1999

funding to install card readers, institute ownership markings and bar coding systems, and security devices for print and non-print material.

Fee Increases

On February 1, 1999, I submitted to Congress a proposed schedule of fees for filing copyright claims, recording documents and providing related services. These fees

would replace the fees specified in section 708(a)(1)–(9) of the copyright law. Our
133

goal is to implement these and other new fees on July 1, 1999. Our proposal would

increase the filing fee for basic (as opposed to supplementary or renewal) registrations from $20 to $30. Other statutory fees, such as those for recording a document,

researching our records and providing a report of our results, will increase to levels

necessary to recover costs. The new fee structure is expected to provide 70 percent

cost recovery for registration and related services. In fiscal year 2000, higher fees

are expected to increase the Office’s receipts by $4.8 million, fund the budget initiatives and reduce the Office’s net appropriation by $2,336,000.

With respect to increasing our fees, I followed the provisions of the Technical

Amendments Act, effective November 13, 1997, which require the Register of Copyrights to conduct a study of costs incurred by the Office for the registration of

claims, the recordation of documents, and for other related services. On the basis

of the study and public policy considerations, and subject to congressional review,

registration, recordation and related statutory fees may be raised to recover reasonable costs, including an adjustment for inflation. However, the new fees must be fair

and equitable and support the objectives of the copyright system.

The Office worked with two consulting firms. One firm provided cost accounting

expertise that produced an in-depth analysis of copyright costs; the other provided

expertise in the new federal ‘‘Managerial Cost Accounting Standards.’’ In order to

address the need for fees to be fair and equitable and to give due consideration to

the objectives of the copyright system, I sought information from authors, copyright

owners, the general public and from the Library of Congress.

The Office published a notice of proposed fee increases that contained two alternative preliminary fee schedules, each of which would recover the costs for providing

registration and other statutory services, and requested written comments on the

two fee schedules and offered the public the opportunity to testify orally at a public

hearing. The Office received significant input from the intended beneficiaries of the

copyright system and users of Copyright Office services. Organizations representing

authors and small publishers urged the Office to set fees lower than the amounts

required to fully recover basic registration expenses, noting that registration is required for enforcement of a copyright, and that registration before infringement

takes place is generally necessary to obtain the crucial remedies of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Many commenters mentioned the hardship higher fees would impose on individual authors, noting that the Internet has decreased their ability to regionalize

the sale of their works—sales are now global. They urged that the fee be kept at

its current level and asserted that the lower fee for individual authors proposed in

the second schedule was too high and would result in decreased applications for

copyright registration.

I evaluated all testimony and comments and took into account the possibility that

a large increase in fees could result in a concomitant decline in registrations which

would jeopardize the stability of the registration system and have a long-term effect

on user fee revenues. It would also erode the Office’s receipt of valuable deposits,

which form the underpinning of the Library’s Americana collections. The schedule

of fees sent to Congress proposes increasing the basic registration fee by 50 percent;

however, some other fee services would increase by as much as 225 percent.

Justification

Determining an exact figure for an appropriation reduction in fiscal year 2000 is

an extremely difficult task because of the uncertainties related both to the precise

fees to be assessed and the impact on demand for services. Further, a fee increase

carries its own costs, including handling claims arriving with insufficient fees,

which, during the first several months, may represent nearly half of all submissions.

History demonstrates that any fee increase negatively affects demand for services

for at least the first year following the increase. The Office’s income projections are

based on an expected 20 percent decline in demand for registrations, the fee service

which provides the largest amount of revenue.

Since income in fiscal year 2000 depends on an unpredictable decline in demand

and the possibility that our proposed fees might not meet with Congressional approval, and thus might not be implemented at all, the Office believes it is essential

to adopt a conservative approach and request a moderate net appropriation reduction and a moderate Offsetting Collections Authority increase for fiscal year 2000.

If, as is hoped, income exceeds expenditures, the Office can apply that income toward an appropriation reduction for fiscal year 2001, a year where income projections can be calculated with more certainty based on a half year’s experience under

the new fee structure.
134

Summary

In its fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Office is seeking authority to fund new

initiatives. They include the funding to hire eight examiners (GS–7), one project

manager for our restructuring efforts (GS–15) and one automation specialist (GS–

13) and funding to increase our digital storage capacity ($70,000), and to conduct

a process engineering study ($400,000) to restructure our processes plus equipment

and software ($16,000) for the project manager. We are also seeking authority to

reimburse the National Records Center ($268,204) for storage of Copyright Office

records.

Funding our operational improvements, including increasing our digital storage

space for claims that are submitted through CORDS, would support our efforts to

become more efficient, to improve public service, and to transition to the global

networked society of the 21st century. Approval of our request would still allow you

to reduce the Office’s net appropriation by $2,336,000.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

I have a few questions, some of which I will submit to you in

writing. But first I think the thing we should do now is this.

Mr. Mulhollan, since we are also going to focus on your budget

as an independent part of the overall Library budget, perhaps we

ought to have you make a few comments before I get into questions. Then the questions can go back and forth.

OPENING REMARKS BY DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to appear before you and Senator Feinstein to

discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request for CRS. I want to

thank this subcommittee for the support it has given to CRS in the

past, for the confidence you have shown in us, and for the close

working relationship that you have made possible.

As the shared resource of Congress, I believe our request will

continue to permit CRS to provide the highest level of legislative

assistance both economically and efficiently.

Our budget request contains only those funds necessary to maintain services to the Congress now and into the future.

CRS REQUEST FOR FUNDING

Our request for funding has two components. The first is to cover

mandatory costs of personnel, which constitute 90 percent of CRS’s

total operating budget. The other 10 percent of costs are allocated

for the tools required to perform research and analysis.

We are also asking that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation cover

cost increases due directly to the effects of inflation.

CRS SUCCESSION PLAN

A second component of the request is to fund the second year of

our 3 year succession plan for maintaining research capability, one

of a number of steps we have taken to preserve institutional memory and to insure continuity of service.

The plan is designed to insure this analytic expertise for Congress by enabling current staff to transfer to new staff their institutional memory, knowledge of the legislative process, and commitment to confidentiality, objectivity, timeliness, accuracy and responsiveness.

As in the past, we have made every effort to hold down costs

and, at the same time, insure continued Congressional access to

our expertise and high productivity. Let me assure you that we re-
135

main committed to work with our fiscal year 1999 budgeted fulltime equivalent positions.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, in the past year we have taken

steps to insure that CRS remains a cost effective shared resource

to the Congress. Our activities are designed to secure our research

and analytic capacity and to facilitate access to our services.

Some examples include: a large-scale realignment of our staff resources, which entails clustering experts and their subject responsibilities around major public policy issues, thereby broadening the

policy context of research units; refining the focus on the current

legislative agenda of the Congress; and streamlining research management.

CRS HOME PAGE

We have also been enhancing the CRS home page to meet Congressional needs, including making all CRS products available electronically—more than 2,800—and piloting a new service, which we

call electronic briefing books, as well as expanding our capacity to

link CRS products to legislation.

Further, as part of our continuing efforts, we are developing and

testing a more sophisticated legislative planning system and continuing our professional development details for CRS staff.

In terms of support for the research process, I would like to bring

you up to date on three activities.

CRS Y2K COMPLIANT

First, as a result of early planning, all of CRS’s mission critical

computer systems, for which we are directly responsible, are now

Y2K compliant.

A second activity, support for the Legislative Information System, is also progressing on track. In 1998, CRS, with the Library,

completed the major tasks approved by the oversight committees

and in 1999, our primary focus is on insuring that the requirements for Y2K are fully addressed.

The major task now is to complete the work for exchanging legislative data between the Library and each chamber.

The target date for completion of this work is the end of June.

CRS SECURITY ISSUES

Information security issues also remain a high priority because

of our technical link to Congressional systems and our own confidential relationship with you. We are implementing recommendations that arose from a 1997 National Security Agency study and

our own continuing review of the security of all CRS systems.

PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF CRS PRODUCTS

Finally, as the subcommittee is aware, legislation has once again

been introduced to make the entire inventory of CRS products on

the CRS home page directly available to the public via the Internet.

We appreciate the sponsors’ expression of the high regard for our

products and the usefulness of these products in informing the

public’s understanding of the legislative issues. We also appreciate
136

that this year the sponsors have sought to address some of the concerns previously identified which would adversely affect our ability

to service Congress if this proposal is implemented.

However, I consider myself obligated to call to the committee’s

attention certain unintended consequences still presented by the

current version of these proposals. With the committee’s permission, I would like to submit for the record analyses which focus on

the legal issues, costs, and other implications of these bills.

Senator BENNETT. Without objection.

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Congressional

Research Service. I first want to thank this Subcommittee for the support it has

given to CRS in the past and to express my gratitude for the confidence you have

shown in the Service and the close working relationship which you have made possible.

My testimony presents the CRS budget request for your consideration, outlines

briefly how your continued support will allow us to offer improved services to the

Congress, and describes ways in which CRS is meeting the changing needs of the

Congress by efficient and effective use of staff and other resources.

Mr. Chairman, as we at CRS meet the challenges of the new year and take advantage of the opportunities arriving in the new millennium, we remain focused on

meeting the many needs of the Congress and we remain committed to supporting

your policy deliberations throughout the legislative process. We are dedicated to the

values imbued in the Service’s charter—namely, to provide the Congress with comprehensive research, analysis, and information services that are on-time, objective,

non-partisan, and confidential. We also remain vigilant to ensure that we provide

cost-effective services to the Congress. As a shared resource serving all Members

and committees, I believe that CRS provides the highest level of legislative assistance economically and efficiently.

CRS BUDGET REQUEST

The budget request I submit today contains only those funds necessary to maintain CRS services to the Congress, now and into the future. Our request for fiscal

2000 is $71,255,000, an increase of $4,131,000 over fiscal 1999. This requested increase has two objectives: (1) to sustain current services and cover the increased

cost of our current staff and nonpersonals, and (2) to fund the second year of our

three year succession plan for maintaining research capacity, preserving the institutional memory, and ensuring continuity of service over the next few years, as half

of our staff become eligible to retire.

We have made every effort to hold down costs and at the same time ensure continued congressional access to our expertise and high productivity. Our request for

maintaining current services covers mandated increases in compensation, namely

cost-of-living increases ($3,424,148) and price level increases in nonpersonals

($147,800).

The second part of the request will help us ensure that we can maintain our research capacity and services to the Congress at a time when many of our most expert and experienced staff will retire. The funding requested, $559,052, will permit

CRS to continue to hire entry level staff in anticipation of this large number of retirements. Let me assure you that we remain committed to work within our fiscal

1999 budgeted full-time equivalents.

MAINTAINING CURRENT SERVICES

Analytic and Information Research Expertise

CRS is the only resource available to the Congress that is dedicated to providing

balanced, nonpartisan, and confidential policy analysis to Members and congressional staff at all stages of the legislative process. We have worked hard to ensure

that we offer these services in the most efficient and effective manner possible. In

fiscal 1998, CRS responded to more than 560,000 congressional requests for research, analysis, and information, assisting every Member and committee of the
137

Congress. In fiscal 1998, responding to congressional needs, CRS created over 1,000

new reports and issues briefs, distributed over 632,000 of these documents, and our

analysts prepared over 2,400 confidential memoranda for the use of individual Members and staff.

Examples of CRS research support during the second session of the 105th Congress underscore the breadth and range of assistance we provide to the Congress.

CRS analysts and information specialists provided assistance to Members and staff

on issues such as banking regulatory reform; biomedical research and applications;

campaign finance reform; changes in clean air mandates; elementary and secondary

education reform; food regulation and agricultural income support; foreign policy

and regional issues; impeachment; patient protection legislation; and IRS reform.

I am also pleased to report that the bipartisan leadership asked CRS to conduct

the official policy orientation for the United States Senate, held at the Library in

December, and the new Member issues seminar for the House of Representatives,

held in Williamsburg, Virginia in January. Both programs were well attended and

by all accounts were extremely informative and useful to the new Members.

Management Initiatives

Recognizing the high expectations of the Congress and its standards for excellence, we have launched several initiatives designed to better tailor our services to

congressional needs and to exploit rapidly evolving technology supporting research

and communications. CRS strives not only to respond expeditiously, but also to deliver its products and services in the manner and form that Congress finds most

useful. Illustrations of this are interdisciplinary team responses to legislative requests on particularly complex issues, such as presidential impeachment, holocaust

victim compensation, terrorism, and health care financing; electronic briefing books

on the CRS Home Page providing quick electronic access to information, analysis,

and key documents on current issues such as social security reform, the tobacco settlement, electric utilities deregulation, and global climate control; direct fax deliveries of the weekly CRS Legislative Alert to assist in preparing for floor action each

week; enhanced access to our products through more effective indicators of product

contents; and the development and testing of CRS legislative planning services to

provide Congress an easily accessible online source of CRS experts, products, and

services for issues on the legislative agenda.

In the next year and continuing into the twenty-first century, the Congress will

work in an increasingly interdependent, fast-paced environment which will generate

intensified needs for readily available and reliable analysis, research, and information. The Congress likely will face several important and distinctive challenges that

we have seen building in the past few years: growing complexity of legislative policy

questions, polarization of policy issues, sizeable Member and staff turnover, increasing reliance on, and pressure generating from, advancements in technology, growing

proliferation of information resources, and given the devolution of Federal responsibilities to the states, the difficulty in obtaining authoritative and comparable state

data, and continued focus on the budget constraints, with consequent pressure for

policy initiatives through appropriations or revenue changes. CRS is prepared to assist you as you face these challenges.

Technology Initiatives

Besides commitments to these management initiatives, CRS has made some important strides in technological improvements to our existing services. New online

search capabilities make it possible for congressional users to find relevant information more quickly and predictably on the CRS Home Page. The number of accessions

to the Home Page by the Congress has increased from 135,825 to 238,385 in the

past year, an increase of 75 percent.

Last year, in addition to creating electronic briefing books, we developed more efficient document delivery on the CRS Home Page by providing a more complete collection of full-text CRS reports and introducing public policy literature abstracts online. We have also undertaken an effort to highlight timely CRS products that analyze current legislative issues, providing a searchable database with direct links to

relevant legislation and other CRS products.

In 1997, CRS began formal planning to prepare for the digital conversion issues

presented by the year 2000 (Y2K). We undertook a comprehensive examination of

our systems, with necessary conversions and testing scheduled for completion well

in advance of the year 2000. I can report that all of our ‘‘mission critical’’ systems

are now compliant. We will continue to work with the Library to ensure that we

meet all requirements under the GAO Year 2000 review of legislative branch entities.
138

Complementary efforts are under way to provide staff with efficient work stations

through needed upgrades in hardware and software, network enhancement, expanded sharing of data, and improvements in communications technology. CRS has

given special attention on matters related to information security—issues which we

are treating as high priority, both because of our confidential relationship with you,

our clients, and because of our technical links to congressional systems.

DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING AN INFORMATION AND RESEARCH CAPABILITY

In the years since the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS

has continuously sought to fulfill its mandate ‘‘to develop and maintain an information and research capability’’ [2 U.S.C. 166(d)(8)] to perform its responsibilities

under that act in supporting the legislative work of the Congress. It has done so

by building, maintaining, and strengthening its research and information capacity

which covers all the subjects of legislative work undertaken by the Congress.

Succession Planning

In implementing the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS hired several

hundred staff in the 1970’s. Many of these staff are still in CRS, and have, over

the subsequent decades, become the core experts on whom Congress relies for research and analysis. Individually and collectively they have developed in-depth

knowledge of the public policy areas they cover and have accumulated valuable institutional memory about how the Congress has dealt with these subjects. Eligible

retirees, many of whom have spent 30 years providing expert policy analysis and

research to you and your predecessors, will be exceedingly difficult to replace.

Since many of these staff will be retiring soon, CRS will lose expertise in a significant number of areas, including public finance, social security, health, constitutional

law, biomedical policy, natural resources policy, macroeconomics, and military personnel. And, by 2006, when fifty percent of all current CRS staff will have become

eligible to retire, the losses will affect virtually every major legislative issue area.

The second circumstance that leads us to make this budget request is that between fiscal 1992 and 1998, CRS staffing decreased by 122 full-time equivalents

(FTE’s) as a result of government-wide budget reductions. Consequently, CRS was

unable to fill behind many of the resignations, deaths or retirements of its professional staff, and therefore does not now have a normal distribution of senior and

junior staff, which would have provided an orderly transfer of institutional knowledge when experts retire.

In response to the future wholesale loss of senior experts, we have developed an

ongoing process to assess and address this heightened risk to our analytic and research capacity. We conducted a staff survey of retirement plans to gain detailed

information about the scope of the problem, and undertook an assessment of the impact of individual retirement plans on overall analytic capacity, by subject area,

through 2006. We also developed a number of strategies to provide more flexibility

in assigning work to current staff, including details and organizational adjustments.

However, such measures do not, by themselves, address the urgent problem of training replacement staff and positioning them to meet your analytic and research

needs in time to avoid serious disruptions in the quality, level, breadth, and timeliness of service.

Last year, we instituted our multi-year plan designed to ensure that CRS can

maintain its analytic expertise despite the retirement of significant numbers of CRS

staff now and continuing in the near future. The plan provides for hiring a limited

number of new staff in key issue areas before experts retire. This will enable current staff to transfer institutional memory on issues, knowledge of the legislative

process, and commitment to CRS service qualities of confidentiality, objectivity,

timeliness, accuracy, and responsiveness, and to assist new staff in developing trust

relationships with clients. In fiscal 1999, Congress provided $435,858, which allows

CRS to use the Graduate Recruit and Law Recruit Programs and begin hiring in

some of the highest risk areas. For fiscal 2000, CRS is requesting $559,052 for

phase two, to permit filling positions in additional high risk areas.

To work independently, entry-level staff, who are already well-trained in their disciplines, must acquire and refine skills and ability to (1) understand the legislative/

budget procedures as practiced; (2) examine issues from an unbiased, nonpartisan

perspective; (3) present analysis and research in a manner and form that best meets

the clients’ legislative needs; and (4) develop and maintain contacts with subject experts in academia, government agencies, and elsewhere.

Newly hired staff work closely with senior analysts in an apprenticeship capacity,

whereby the senior staff can share their knowledge and experience in their discipline within the legislative context. CRS found during the period since the 1970

Legislative Reorganization Act that it takes a number of years for an entry level
139

analyst to develop subject expertise and knowledge of the legislative environment

in order to handle complex issues in the thorough, confidential and timely manner

of a senior analyst.

Realignment—Deploying Resources Strategically

In addition to our succession efforts, we have undertaken a large scale redeployment of CRS staff resources to secure the capacity of our research and analysis for

future Congresses.

Planning for this effort included meeting with House and Senate leadership and

with individual Members to discuss the work of the Service and how it could better

meet their needs, soliciting input from CRS staff on a wide range of issues, examining CRS workload and distribution of work, assessing implications of potential

loss of expertise through retirement and succession planning to deal with such

losses, and identifying strategic issues and implications for CRS of the changing

characteristics of the Congress. Throughout these discussions and evaluations the

Service emphasized the importance of maintaining high-quality responses to congressional requests, strengthening interdisciplinary interchanges among CRS staff

to improve those responses, and enhancing communications between CRS and the

Congress as well as within CRS itself. Implementation of this realignment of our

staff resources follows an agreement with the Congressional Research Employees

Association (International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local

75), to resolve concerns about the realignment.

This initiative aligns our staff resources more closely to the legislative needs of

the Congress by clustering experts and their subject responsibilities around major

public policy issue areas, broadening the policy context of research units, refining

the focus on the current legislative agenda of the Congress, and streamlining research management.

In addition to the succession initiative and the realignment, we are undertaking

a number of important activities to build research capacity within current resources.

Examples of these include: establishment of professional development details for

CRS staff; institution of a visiting scholars program to bring temporarily to CRS respected experts who work in emerging issue and discipline areas; operation of professional volunteer programs using gratuitous services contracts; and use of contracts to perform tasks for the Congress requiring knowledge and skills not resident

in the Service and not needed on a long-term basis.

SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES: LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM (LIS)

Mr. Chairman, as you know, CRS has been tasked to coordinate the development

of an online retrieval system to meet the requirements of both the Senate and the

House for the most accurate, up-to-date, and complete legislative information available. The Library has been tasked to provide the technical support for the development of that system.

The initial impetus for this effort came from the Committee on Appropriations,

which directed the Library to study duplication among the various bill tracking systems maintained by the House, Senate, GPO, and the Library. Subsequently, the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration approved a plan for each chamber to be responsible for the creation

and management of its own legislative information, and for a coordinated retrieval

system to be developed and maintained by CRS and the Library.

During 1998, CRS and the Library completed the major tasks approved by the

oversight committees. These efforts focused on adding legislative files and much of

the retrieval functionality required by new and occasional congressional users as

well as by expert users. Significant work was also begun on improving system availability, response time, and security. Major collaborative efforts with the Senate and

House were undertaken to begin planning for development of Y2K-compliant systems for the exchange of data.

In 1999 our primary focus will be on ensuring that the requirements for Y2K are

fully addressed. The LIS retrieval software has already been successfully tested by

the Library. The major task now confronting us is to complete the work begun last

year on the systems for exchanging legislative data between the Senate and the Library and between the House and the Library. In the Senate, we are working closely with the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant At Arms to ensure that this

work is completed on schedule. In the House, we are working closely with the Clerk

of the House and the Chief Administrative Officer. The target date for completion

of this work by the Senate, House and Library is the end of June.

During fiscal 2000, CRS will work on LIS tasks which were deferred in order to

take care of immediate Y2K concerns, and others which will depend upon the satisfactory completion of the 1999 tasks, as well as any additional requirements which
140

emerge from the House and Senate. CRS and the Library are uniquely qualified to

play this role for the Congress. While LIS development has placed a strain on CRS

resources, we have to date been able to accomplish these tasks and meet evolving

requirements utilizing existing staff. We expect to be able to continue to do so. Our

realignment formally recognizes our long-term commitment to developing and improving the LIS by institutionalizing the LIS function within our Office of Information Resources Management.

DISTRIBUTION OF CRS WRITTEN PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC

Once again this year legislation has been introduced to make the entire inventory

of CRS products on the CRS Home Page directly available to the general public via

the Internet. We certainly appreciate this expression of the high regard of the sponsors for CRS products and their usefulness of these products in informing the

public’s understanding of legislative issues before the Congress. We also appreciate

that this year the sponsors have sought to address some of the concerns which were

identified and which would adversely affect our ability to serve Members and committees if this proposal is implemented. However, I consider myself obligated to call

to the Committee’s attention certain unintended consequences still presented by the

current version of these proposals. With the Committee’s permission I would like

to submit for the record analyses which focus on the legal issues, costs, and other

implications of these bills, which are attached to my testimony. In particular, you

will note that the preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found

that last year’s proposal could cost CRS as much as $7 million each year; the current bills do not alter the assumptions on which that estimate is based.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the budgetary constraints confronting this Subcommittee as it crafts the appropriation for the Legislative Branch, and it is for that

reason that our request is limited to the funds essential to sustain our current efforts. Our highest priority is to provide the Congress with efficient, cost-effective

support that meets your highest standards for quality, comprehensiveness, accuracy,

objectivity, and nonpartisanship.

I am committed to ensuring that CRS is a key resource to the Congress for analytic and information support for its legislative activities in the demanding years

ahead. Its singular combination of expertise, its strong interdisciplinary approach to

addressing complex legislation, its sensitivity to and understanding of the congressional environment, its commitment to nonpartisanship, its access to a wealth of

data and sources, and its information technology environment uniquely position the

Service to assist the Congress as it faces the challenges of the last days of the twentieth century and well into the twenty-first century.

Thank you for allowing me to come before you and other members of this committee today to present our budget request, share some of our recent accomplishments, and outline our plans for the upcoming years.

CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CRS WRITTEN

PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC—MARCH 9, 1999

The following discussion reviews congressional policy concerning distribution of

CRS products to the public and addresses issues for consideration by the Congress

in determining whether to alter current policy regarding public availability of various CRS products, such as Reports and Issue Briefs.

As set forth below, CRS at present is precluded by law from general public distribution of its materials without prior approval by a congressional oversight committee. The Congress has actively exercised its oversight authority regarding CRS

publication practices and has developed and promulgated standards to be applied

in evaluating specific proposals. Current guidelines from the Joint Committee on the

Library and other congressional bodies, issued in 1980, restrict the vast majority of

CRS written products to congressional use and distribution to the public on a selective basis only.

Many years of congressional consideration of this issue reveal serious concerns

about the institutional and legal consequences likely to result from the wholesale

direct public distribution of CRS products with a potentially large circulation (e.g.,

CRS Reports and Issue Briefs).
141

1For the current version of this provision, see Pub. L. 105–55, 111 Stat. 1190 (1997).

BACKGROUND ON CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF

CRS WRITTEN PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC

Summary

Congress has historically reserved to itself control over the dissemination of CRS

products to the public on the principle that CRS, as an extension of congressional

staff, works exclusively for the Congress.

To maintain congressional control over dissemination, a provision has been included in CRS annual appropriations acts since fiscal year 1952 requiring prior

oversight committee approval for any CRS publication (as noted above, ‘‘publication’’

refers to wholesale release of CRS products directly to the public).

Congress has never authorized the wholesale public dissemination of CRS analytical products such as Reports or Issue Briefs (and has seldom authorized publication

of other products), whether by CRS or the Congress, but rather has preferred to rely

on congressional release of individual products on a case-by-case basis.

To further indicate the degree of congressional control over CRS products, Congress, the courts, and administrative tribunals have declared CRS communications

to the Congress to be privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution and to be under the custody and control of the Congress. These determinations

have assured the maintenance of confidentiality in CRS relationships with congressional clients, a critical element of CRS effectiveness and an expectation of those

who seek its assistance.

Current Restrictions and Guidelines

At present, CRS is precluded by law from general public distribution of its materials without prior approval by one of its two congressional oversight committees.

This restriction results from a limitation that has appeared in CRS’ annual appropriations acts in each year since fiscal year 1952. This provision reads as follows:

‘‘Provided, That no part of this appropriation may be used to pay any salary or expense in connection with any publication, or preparation of material therefor (except

the Digest of Public General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress unless

such publication has obtained prior approval of either the Committee on House

Oversight or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.’’ 1

The most recent policy statement from Congress regarding the publication of CRS

written products came in 1980. In a communication, dated March 21, 1980, the

Joint Committee on the Library reaffirmed: ‘‘Congressional policy that the circulation of CRS materials prepared specifically for congressional use be limited to the

Congress, and that the long-standing policy of confidentiality in the work of CRS

for individual congressional clients should be maintained. We believe that, as in the

past, CRS and its oversight committees should consider the publication of only those

CRS products whose release to the general public would be compatible, both in

terms of cost and product content, with the CRS’s obligations to the Congress.’’

The 1980 guidelines were developed subsequent to a 1978 proposal to CRS by the

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) under which CRS would have received access to the files of State research materials abstracted by the NCSL, and

also would have had the opportunity to order copies of desired items for use in answering congressional inquiries. In return, CRS would have provided the NCSL with

periodic listings of CRS Reports (called ‘‘multiliths’’ at that time) and with only one

copy of those CRS Reports which the NCSL requested. Under this proposal the

NCSL also would have gained access to certain files from the Library of Congress’s

SCORPIO system, including CRS Issue Briefs.

On September 27, 1978, the Joint Committee on the Library held a hearing to

consider the CRS-NCSL exchange proposal. At the hearing, the Committee concluded that any transmission of CRS material contained in SCORPIO to non-congressional users via computer terminal would constitute a ‘‘publication’’ and thus,

under the terms of the language contained in CRS’s annual appropriations legislation (noted above) would require the prior approval of either the Committee on

House Administration or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Moreover, members of the Joint Committee expressed serious reservations about any activity that might divert CRS resources and priorities from its statutory responsibilities to Congress. Finally, members of the Committee expressed the view that it was

appropriate for Members of Congress, rather than CRS, to determine whether and

to what extent various CRS products should be publicly disseminated. As a result,

no action was taken to implement the proposed CRS-NCSL exchange.

The March 21, 1980 guidelines were followed later that month (March 27, 1980)

by enactment of a Senate Resolution. (S. Res. 396, 96th Congress). The Senate re-
142

2 126 Cong. Rec. 6892 (March 27, 1980). This Senate Resolution directed the Senate Legal

Counsel to represent the Senate and CRS in respect to a Federal Trade Commission administrative law judge’s ‘‘sweeping subpoena [on behalf of oil companies involved in a FTC proceeding]

to the Congressional Research Service for documents which discuss the oil industry and governmental policy in relation to it.’’ Id. The Resolution stated that ‘‘the communications between the

Congressional Research Service and the members and committees of the Congress are an integral part of the legislative process and privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.’’ 3 Id.

4 2 U.S.C. 166(d)(6).

5 2 U.S.C. 168.

6 44 U.S.C. 1333.

7 CRS has not undertaken to survey congressional offices to determine this precise percentage.

solved: ‘‘That it is the determination of the Senate that the communications of the

Congressional Research Service to the members and committees of the Congress are

under the custody and control of the Congress and may be released only by the Congress, its Houses, committees and members, in accordance with the rules and privileges of each House.’’ 2

Senate Majority Leader Byrd, in introducing the Resolution, noted CRS’ role in

advising members and committees on legislative issues and that CRS ‘‘thereby provides a service to the Members and committees of Congress which is equivalent to

that performed by the staffs of Members and committees.’’ 3

Over the years, and at the request of CRS, the Joint Committee on the Library

has authorized a very limited number of CRS publications for broader distribution

through depository libraries, the sales program of the Superintendent of Documents,

and to the public through individual purchases. In addition, several CRS products

are published as the result of specific statutory authorization: the Digest of General

Public Bills and Resolutions (Bill Digest); 4 and three publications for which CRS

has been given responsibility by the Librarian of Congress: the Constitution of the

United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation (Constitution Annotated); 5

and the national high school and college debate topic manuals.6

Current Accessibility of CRS Written Products

With few exceptions, congressional offices are the exclusive source for distributing

CRS Reports and Issue Briefs to the public. Member offices use CRS products to

develop their own understanding of policy issues and options and to inform their

constituents regarding these issues and options. The principles of representative

government and of legislative accountability hold that representatives have an obligation to provide their constituents with the information and understanding required in order to exercise democratic citizenship; that is, the democratic idea that

the authority of those who govern rests on the consent of those who are governed,

calls for democratic consent to be fully informed and enlightened.

It is well known, both in Washington, D.C. and by interested parties throughout

the country, that constituents may obtain copies of CRS written products through

a Member or Committee of Congress. In addition, congressional offices often respond

directly to constituent requests for information on particular subjects by sending

copies of CRS Reports and Issue Briefs. For example, during fiscal year 1998, over

500,000 printed copies of CRS Reports and Issue Briefs were sent to congressional

offices. Some percentage of these are sent on to constituents—either because constituents asked for them specifically or as a means of answering constituent requests for information.7

Three changes during the past year have enhanced Members’ and Committees’

ability to make CRS products available to constituents in electronic format through

congressional home pages. First, CRS has more than doubled the number of CRS

products available in the popular hypertext (HTML) World Wide Web format. Over

the past year, several hundred CRS reports have now joined issue briefs in being

made available in HTML format. Second, CRS has made all CRS documents available in portable document format (PDF). This special format allows Members to easily print high-quality, professional-looking copies of any CRS product from their own

offices at any time.

Third, CRS has greatly simplified finding the right CRS product online. The Legislative Information System now carries a direct link to all CRS products. And, new

CRS search pages and changes in the search technology applications allow Members

and Committees and staff to more readily locate the CRS products they need. This

upgrade makes it easier for Members and Committees to add Issue Briefs and Reports to their own home pages for their constituents to the extent such availability

is deemed appropriate by Members and Committees.
143

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHOLESALE RELEASE OF CRS PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC

Institutional Issues

The direct, wholesale dissemination by Congress of Reports and Issue Briefs

would have significant effects on the policies, resources, and institutional culture

that CRS utilizes in serving the Congress.

First, CRS’ mission is to support the Congress exclusively. Given its limited resources, CRS can undertake services to non-congressional entities (such as the public) only at the expense of direct support of the Congress. While the direct and indirect costs associated with disseminating Reports and Issue Briefs are difficult to estimate with precision, it is clear that significant resources would have to be diverted

from congressional services. For example, with wider product distribution, particularly to users of the Internet/World Wide Web, CRS is more likely to get calls, comments, and requests for additions and changes that would place a burden on CRS

analysts, distracting them from their work for Congress. In particular, outside parties may judge and question CRS papers on the basis of standards other than the

standards CRS has developed to meet congressional needs (e.g., timeliness, non-partisanship, balance, objectivity). It is reasonable to anticipate that the volume of communications between CRS and the public, currently manageable, would rise substantially and affect the Service’s ability to meet the needs of congressional requester. Any mechanisms developed by CRS to shield analysts from these demands

would of course also involve resource commitments.

Second, CRS analysts now direct their writings, focused on legislative issues, to

congressional audiences. The closeness of CRS to the legislative process and the sensitivity of the Service’s traditional culture of exclusively supporting Congress’ legislative needs shape the nature and content of its written products. If CRS written

products were routinely available on a wholesale basis to academic and other professional peers outside the Congress, CRS analysts might become more conscious of the

need to address views, methods, disciplines, and expectations of non-congressional

professional peers, with the result that CRS written work could shift away, or appear to shift away, from its current emphasis on the congressional audience.

With an awareness that a CRS Report would be disseminated to the public, Members may increase the number of confidential requests that they place with CRS in

order to ensure that they are provided an opportunity—should they so desire—to

reflect and consider questions that emerge from evolving legislative proposals before

they have to respond to public inquiry about the resulting issues. This increase in

confidential requests requiring more tailored responses would diminish the ability

of CRS analysts to prepare reports that are generally available to Congress and that

serve a broader congressional audience. With this increase in tailored analysis

would come the necessity of duplicating more analysis because of the demand of

those Members who request that their examination of a legislative proposal remain

confidential at that point in the legislative process.

A third, related concern is potentially increased pressure from interest groups and

lobbying organizations on CRS analysts concerning the content of their reports and

the impact this pressure may have on serving the direct needs of the Congress for

analysis and information that is non-partisan, objective, and balanced. Enhanced internal mechanisms would have to be developed to ensure that communications with

interested parties did not deflect CRS analysts from producing products that are

free from advocacy and bias, resulting in a further diversion of resources from direct

service to Congress.

Fourth, CRS staff serve by statute as an extension of Member and committee

staff. The release by Congress of CRS Reports and Issue Briefs may set a precedent

leading to greater pressure to have studies prepared by congressional staff for Members’ exclusive use (e.g., committee staff studies distributed to entire committee

membership) to be disseminated directly to the general public. It might be difficult

for Congress to articulate a convincing rationale for granting public access to the

Service’s work but denying equivalent access to materials prepared by other shared

staff (e.g., committee staff) that are distributed to more than one Member. Thus, a

policy of providing Members’ constituents with the same materials that Members

themselves draw upon to make legislative decisions could have serious implications

for the functions of staff and their relationship with Members.

Legal Issues

This section considers three pertinent legal issues associated with the wholesale

dissemination of CRS products to the public. The first two issues involve the speech

or debate clause of the Constitution and the third deals with intellectual property

questions.
144

8 U.S.Constitution, Art. 1, § 6, clause 1.

9 408 U.S. 501, 509, 512 (1972).

10Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 324 (1973). The Court remanded for a determination as to

whether the extent of distribution by the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents

had exceeded ‘‘the legitimate legislative needs of Congress, and hence the limits of immunity.’’

Id. On the remand, the lower courts upheld the claim of immunity as to the Public Printer and

Superintendent of Documents (374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff’d, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C.Cir.

1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978)), but the court of appeals expressly reserved the question of the availability of immunity ‘‘in a case where distribution was more extensive * * *.’’

566 F.2d at 718. Apparently the only copies distributed outside the federal government in the

events that precipitated the suit in McMillan were approximately 172 of 796 copies that had

been distributed to various federal agencies. 11See, e.g., Doe v. McMillan, supra; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). 12 As one legal journal has observed, in addressing the Internet and other computer-related

issues, the courts are on ‘‘uncharted water.’’ Thou Shalt Not Trespass—Even in Cyberspace,

New Jersey Lawyer, Sept. 1, 1997, at p. 10. 13See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995) . 14Discovery attempts to obtain CRS file materials have often been defended by the offices of

House General Counsel or Senate Legal Counsel. See, e.g., S. Res. 291, 101st Cong. (resolution

directing Senate Legal Counsel to represent a CRS attorney in Smith v. IRS, No. 3778–89 (Tax

Ct. 1990)).

1. Widespread electronic dissemination to the general public of CRS Reports and

Issue Briefs would be more likely than dissemination pursuant to current policy to

precipitate litigation in which speech or debate clause immunity would not be a defense.

Since its 1972 ruling in United States v. Brewster, the Supreme Court has limited

the immunity afforded under the speech or debate clause 8 to ‘‘legislative acts,’’

which were distinguished from a range of activity described as ‘‘entirely legitimate’’

but unprotected by the speech or debate clause because it was considered to be ‘‘political in nature.’’ 9 In several cases relevant to the applicability of speech or debate

immunity to the public distribution of CRS products, the Court has relied on the

dichotomy established in Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended to

inform the general public are outside the scope of the speech or debate clause. Notably, in Doe v. McMillan, the Court found that the clause might not protect the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents from liability for distribution of

a committee report, which contained material alleged to have invaded individual

privacy rights, beyond ‘‘the legitimate legislative needs of Congress * * *.’’ 10

The dissemination (by Members and/or their aides, by CRS, or by a congressionally designated entity) to the general public of CRS products would not be viewed

as a legislative act but would be considered to be an exercise of Congress’ representational function, for which speech or debate immunity is not available.11 Those engaged in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS analysts who prepare

the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of administrative and judicial proceedings. In such actions, litigants might seek, for purposes of discovery, the files

of CRS analysts or litigants might ask for damages or injunctive relief barring further distribution of a particular report or issue brief. Litigants might also claim

damages in suits alleging copyright infringement.

It would seem that these kinds of actions would be more likely to occur as a result

of widespread electronic dissemination to the general public of CRS products than

from the current practice of limited distribution (e.g., dissemination by a congressional office of a single hard copy of a particular CRS product to a constituent or

incorporation of a CRS product in a committee report or hearing).

2. Widespread electronic public dissemination of CRS products would jeopardize

the confidentiality of CRS files and hamper a claim of constitutional immunity by

CRS.

Widespread electronic circulation of CRS products to the general public could set

CRS on a course accompanied by uncertain legal consequences.12

An inevitable consequence of widespread distribution of CRS products to the general public would be an increase in public awareness of the research and analysis

prepared by the Service for Congress, which could escalate the efforts of litigants

to obtain, for purposes of discovery, CRS analysts’ files. These discovery attempts

might seek not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue

Briefs but also related material from the Service’s files.

Speech or debate immunity may provide a valid defense in such discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected legislative act.13 However,

it is noted that, even in those cases in which CRS succeeded in defending against

discovery efforts, the litigation would place a burden on CRS and other congressional resources 14 and could put judges in the position of arbitrating disputes con-
145

15See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980). 16See, e.g., Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42 (D.Md. 1983), rev’d on other

grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d 634 (4th Cir. 1984). 17See, e.g., United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 488 n.7 (1979). 18The courts are divided on the question of whether the speech or debate clause was intended

to ensure confidentiality for legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 62 F.3d

at 420 with In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597. 19See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790 F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within scope of common law privilege for communications to

a legislative body); In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for CRS documents barred by speech or debate immunity and separation of powers doctrine; CRS performs

an ‘‘essentially legislative function’’). 20See, Doe v. McMillan, note 9, supra. 21 17 U.S.C. § 105. 22The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the following statement: ‘‘The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105 that would relieve the Government of

its obligation to secure permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2) publication

or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its copyright protection in

any way.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1976). 23 Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain copyrighted works, the permissions

are generally based on legislative use and the expectation that dissemination is limited to Members of Congress. 24 Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–553 (codified as amended at

17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.). See 17 U.S.C. § 107. 25 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 106A. 26 17 U.S.C. §§ 107–120.

cerning the confidentiality of communications between CRS and Congress.15 Claims

of speech or debate immunity would be subject to review by the courts, potentially

including in camera inspection of material as to which a claim of privilege is made 16

and segregation of protected from non-protected material.17 Arguably, this type of

judicial sifting of legislative branch materials would impinge upon the interest in

confidentiality served by the speech or debate clause.18

Further, for two reasons, it is uncertain whether Congress would prevail in litigating such matters. First, it is possible that a court would not precisely differentiate among the information in the superficially similar types of documents in a

CRS subject file and would grant litigants access not only to publicly available information but also to confidential communications between the Service and congressional offices. Second, in previous instances in which CRS has been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the judicial or agency decision has emphasized that

CRS performs a legislative function and that its staff functions as an adjunct of

Member and committee staff.19 With wider dissemination of CRS products to the

general public, this longstanding perception of the Service and the nature of its communications to the Congress could be altered, eventually putting at risk speech or

debate protection for the Service’s confidential work. In other words, extensive involvement by CRS in the direct public information function could lead courts and

administrative agencies to reconsider their perception of CRS as playing a significant and unique support role in the legislative process, and thus some day might

hamper a claim of immunity even in an instance in which CRS was fulfilling its

legislative function.20

3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS materials are

made available online to members of the general public.

United States copyright protection is not available for U.S. Government works.21

Those portions of a public document authored by the U.S. Government are in the

‘‘public domain’’—freely and widely available to the public without restrictions

placed on their dissemination. However, the government’s inclusion of copyrighted

material in a government publication does not thrust that material into the public

domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.22

CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public domain sources, in certain instances the material, appropriately credited, may be from copyrighted

sources. To the extent that the material is copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use; 23 considers its information-gathering function protected by the

speech or debate clause; or believes that the use falls under the ‘‘fair use’’ doctrine

of the Copyright Act 24 as applied in the context of the legislative process.

The exclusive rights 25 of the copyright owner are qualified or limited by enumerated exceptions.26 Unless excused by a statutory exception, the unauthorized use of

a copyrighted work is considered an infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations
146

27See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S. Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st

Sess. 61–62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print

1961) (hereafter REGISTER’S REPORT). 28See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73. 29Moreover, if CRS products were generally available to the public, the construction of these

products may be affected, with the potential consequent loss when material, such as copyrighted

maps or graphs, may be withheld in the writing of the paper with the foreknowledge that the

paper could be widely disseminated and thereby subject to different ‘‘fair use’’ guidelines than

those applicable to work for legislative use only. Therefore, public availability may perforce

shape selected CRS products so that their contents no longer bring to bear the best information

and analysis to assist Members in their decisionmaking. 30 As originally enacted, § 1498 applied only to suits for patent infringement against the

United States. In 1960, Congress amended § 1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86–726 provided: ‘‘Nothing in this

Act shall be construed to in any way waive any immunity provided for Members of Congress

under article I of section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.’’

Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order ‘‘to emphasize the fact

that no immunities for Members of Congress under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall

be waived by the enactment of this legislation.’’ See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech or debate clause protection

would protect Congressional use of copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g., copyrighted material inserted into

the Congressional Record or congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of

May 26, 1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its speech or debate clause immunity when it amended § 1498. However, insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g., political activities or public information activities) are concerned, it would

appear that § 1498(b) would not shield Congress from a copyright infringement action. 31 17 U.S.C. §§106(4),(5).

on the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.

The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use of copyrighted

works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate Reports on the Copyright

Act of 1976 include the ‘‘reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings

or reports’’ among examples of fair use.27 The legislative history also contains an

observation that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents

would constitute fair use ‘‘[w]here the length of the work or excerpt published and

the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the

work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate legislative concern * * *.’’ 28

Thus, in an infringement action, a court might regard the publication of copyrighted material in a Congressional document for legitimate legislative purposes as

a ‘‘fair use.’’ If, however, the use is outside of such legislative purposes, it is possible

that a traditional fair use analysis might result in liability for copyright infringement. Wider dissemination outside the confines of Congress would further complicate the ‘‘fair use’’ question.29

The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright infringement for

unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S. Government. Subsection

1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright infringement by the United States is an action against the

United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ‘‘for the recovery

of * * * reasonable and entire compensation*** including the minimum statutory damages * * *.’’ Speech or debate clause immunity is not waived under §

1498(b); however, activities outside of the legislative sphere would not be shielded

from a copyright infringement action.30

In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose and limited to selective distribution of hardcopy by Members of Congress. If access is broadened to wholesale release to members of the general public, such release may be outside the scope of

‘‘legitimate legislative purpose.’’ If a CRS product, containing substantial copyrighted material (albeit with appropriate credit) is made available to the general

public without permission and outside the confines of traditional fair use, liability

is possible. In this regard, distinctions can be made between the selective distribution of hardcopy CRS products by Members and Committees and wholesale, potentially world-wide distribution of CRS products on the Internet. Violation of any of

the exclusive rights of the copyright owner may give rise to an action for copyright

infringement. Although the extent of copyright owners’ rights in the online environment is still evolving, wholesale distribution of CRS products via the Internet—unlike the current practice—would likely implicate copyright owners’ performance and

public display rights, 31 as a matter of direct infringement, and may implicate rights
147

32 17 U.S.C. §106(1), (3). 33 17 U.S.C. §§101,106(3). 1This study addresses, inter alia, issues relating to the speech or debate clause that were

raised in the statement of Senator McCain upon introduction of S. 1578, 105th Cong. (providing

that the Director of CRS is to make specified CRS products, including Reports and Issue Briefs,

available on the Internet) and in a letter inserted by Senator McCain in the Congressional

Record from Stanley Brand, former General Counsel to the House of Representatives (hereafter,

Brand letter). 144 Cong. Rec. S123–25 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 1998). 2The Internet has been described by the Supreme Court as ‘‘a unique and wholly new medium

of worldwide human communication.’’ Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S. Ct. 2329,

2334 (1997). Commentators have observed that ‘‘novel and unsettled’’ legal questions are raised

by cyberspace (Decisions Reflect Nature of Media, National Law Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, at p.

B8) and that in addressing the ‘‘Internet and computer-related issues’’ the courts are on ‘‘uncharted water.’’ Though Shalt Not Trespass—Even in Cyberspace, New Jersey Lawyer, Sept. 1,

1997, at p. 10. 3 United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178 (1966)(footnote omitted). See also United States

v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 507 (1972). 4Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 618 (1972). 5See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180 (1966); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.

168, 203–04 (1880). 6For a detailed historical review of the restricted reading placed upon the clause by the

courts, see Walker, Constitutional Law: Narrowing the Scope of Speech or Debate Clause Immunity, 68 Temple L. Rev. 377 (1995).

of reproduction and public distribution 32 either as a matter of direct, vicarious or

contributory infringement. On the other hand, under a ‘‘fair use’’ analysis, there is

likely less effect upon the potential market of the copyright owner in the case of

selective hardcopy distribution than in the case of wholesale distribution on the

Internet. Selective distribution of hardcopy CRS products by Members may not constitute ‘‘publication’’ in the copyright sense.33

CONCLUSION

To review, Congress has historically regarded CRS as an extension of its own

Member and committee staff. CRS’ relationship with Congress is confidential and

exclusive; in order to preserve this relationship, Congress has determined as a matter of policy that CRS products are to be distributed to non-congressional users

through congressional offices on a selective basis. Proposals to disseminate CRS

products directly to the public would fundamentally change this longstanding congressional policy, with potentially significant institutional and legal consequences

for CRS and current congressional operations and practices.

LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY PROPOSALS FOR THE GENERAL RELEASE OF CRS

PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC—FEBRUARY 24, 1998

This paper considers significant legal issues implicated by proposals involving the

general release of Congressional Research Service (CRS) products such as Reports

and Issue Briefs. (Issues of policy and technology posed by the general release of

CRS products are beyond the scope of this analysis.) Specifically, attention is given

to three pertinent legal issues, the first two involving the Speech or Debate Clause

and the third dealing with intellectual property questions. This study assumes that

CRS products would be published by CRS itself and identifies adverse legal consequences that would result from such publication. Publication of CRS products by

the Congress would have corresponding legal consequences but these would be exacerbated in the case of direct public dissemination by CRS itself.1

1. Dissemination of CRS products on the Internet 2 would not be cloaked with constitutional immunity.

Members of Congress are protected by art. I, § 6, cl. 1, of the Constitution, which

provides in part that ‘‘for any speech or debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.’’ The clause performs two

related functions. First, it protects the ‘‘independence and integrity of the legislature,’’ and second, it ‘‘reinforce[s] the separation of powers * * *.’’ 3 The clause ‘‘applies not only to a Member but also to his aides insofar as the conduct of the latter

would be a protected legislative act if performed by the Member himself.’’ 4

In early decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause broadly and considered it as protecting activity beyond the walls of the chamber.5 However, in recent

years the Court has constricted the range of actions shielded by the constitutional

provision.6 Beginning with its decision in 1972 in United States v. Brewster, the
148

7 408 U.S. 501, 509 (1972).

8 Id. at 512. 9Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. 10 408 U.S. at 512. 11 In dicta in Brewster, the Court indicated that newsletters to constituents, news releases,

and speeches delivered outside of Congress would not be protected by speech or debate immunity. Id. 12 Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). See also Chastain v. Sundquist, 833 F.2d 311

(D.C.Cir. 1987) (Member’s press release and communications to executive branch not protected

by speech or debate immunity or common law official immunity), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240

(1988). In a recent ruling in a defamation suit based on a Member’s statement in a television

interview concerning the status of an appropriations bill, speech or debate immunity was not

available but the Member successfully invoked a statutory mechanism (28 U.S.C. § 2679

(Westfall Act)) providing for substitution of the United States as the defendant. Williams v.

United States, 71 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 1995). 13Gravel, 408 U.S. at 609–10, 622. 14 412 U.S. 306, 315, 324 (1973). However, the Court held that the actions of the Members,

their staffs, and consultants in preparing the report and ordering that it be printed were protected by speech or debate immunity. Id. at 313. 15 Id. at 328. Justice Blackmun, in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part that

was joined by Chief Justice Burger, considered the informing function to be ‘‘an essential attribute of an effective Legislative Branch,’’ and believed that the opinion of the Court effectively

curtailed that function and thereby violated ‘‘the historical tradition signified textually by the

speech or debate clause and underlying our doctrine of separation of powers.’’ Id. at 334. The

suggestion in Justice Douglas’s concurrence that speech or debate immunity should protect the

informing function has not been adopted by the Court in subsequent cases. In fact, in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. at 130, the majority opinion approved the views expressed in Justice

White’s opinion for the Court in McMillan.

Court has limited the protection of the clause to ‘‘legislative acts.’’ 7 In that case,

the Court explained that ‘‘a legislative act has consistently been defined as an act

generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech

or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in

the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation

for those acts.’’ 8 In another frequently quoted description of the scope of the privilege, the Court declared that, in addition to actual speech or debate in either House,

the clause applies only to acts which are ‘‘an integral part of the deliberative and

communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House

proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed

legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the

jurisdiction of either House.’’ 9

In Brewster, the Court distinguished protected legislative acts from a range of activity described as ‘‘entirely legitimate’’ but unprotected by speech or debate immunity because it was considered to be ‘‘political in nature.’’ 10 In several cases of relevance to the applicability of speech or debate immunity to the general public distribution of CRS products, the Court has relied on the dichotomy established in

Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended to inform the general public

are outside the scope of the speech or debate clause.11 Thus, the Court has held that

the clause did not protect a Member from liability for allegedly defamatory remarks

in newsletters and press releases based almost entirely on the Member’s statement

to the Senate, which had appeared in the Congressional Record.12 The Court has

further held that the clause did not preclude a grand jury from questioning a Member’s aide in regard to possible criminal liability for arranging for the private publication of the Pentagon Papers, which previously had been inserted by the Member

in a subcommittee hearing record.13

Perhaps most importantly, in Doe v. McMillan, a suit filed against, inter alia, various Members, their staffs and consultants, the Public Printer, and the Superintendent of Documents, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages

based on the publication of an official committee report that included material alleged to invade plaintiffs’ privacy, in an opinion written by Justice White, the Court

held that individuals ‘‘such as the Superintendent of Documents or the Public Printer or legislative personnel, who participate in distribution of [legally] actionable material beyond the reasonable bounds of the legislative task, enjoy no speech or debate clause immunity.’’ 14 Justice Douglas, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices

Brennan and Marshall, would have extended speech or debate immunity to ‘‘a legislator’s function in informing the public’’ because that task ‘‘is essential to maintaining our representative democracy.’’ 15

The Court in McMillan remanded for a determination as to whether the extent

of distribution by the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents had exceeded ‘‘the legitimate legislative needs of Congress, and hence the limits of immu-
149

16 412 U.S. at 324–25. 17 374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff’d, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S.

969 (1978). Based on affidavits submitted by the Public Printer, other material in the record,

and a memorandum of the Public Printer filed upon appeal of the district court’s ruling, ‘‘it was

determined that in addition to 2,557 copies of the report distributed within the Congress and

its staff, 796 copies were distributed to various federal government agencies based on statutory

requirements and standing orders. Another 796 copies were retained in a security cage [and

were not distributed because of the litigation].*** About 54 ‘extra’ copies were retained by

the Printer for internal use and for distribution in case of spoilage.’’ 566 F.2d at 715. Apparently

the only copies distributed outside the federal government were approximately 172 of the 796

copies that had been distributed to various federal agencies. Specifically, ‘‘about 92 copies were

distributed to members of the public who maintained standing orders for all committee reports’’

and ‘‘about 80 copies were automatically delivered to foreign legations with standing orders for

all committee reports under 44 U.S.C. § 1717 * * *.’’ Id. at 716. 18 Id. at 718. 19See Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. at 318 (immunity of Superintendent of Public Documents

and of Public Printer was coextensive with that of Members of Congress whom they served). 20 Under the Court’s holding in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 618, speech or debate immunity applies

to a Member’s aide ‘‘insofar as the conduct of the*** [aide] would be a protected legislative

act if performed by the Member himself.’’ 21 In determining whether the extent of distribution exceeds the legislative needs of Congress,

and thus is outside the bounds of speech or debate immunity, the courts may consider various

factors relating to the distribution, including the number of copies circulated and the purposes

for which they were circulated. See Doe v. McMillan, 374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff’d, 566 F. 2d 713 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978). 22 In his remarks upon the introduction of S. 1578, Senator McCain observed that, by providing for the dissemination of CRS research products via the Internet, Members would be fulfilling their role of informing the public. Senator McCain recognized that an issue exists as to

the applicability of speech or debate immunity to exercises of the informing function. 144 Cong.

Rec., supra note 1, at S123. 23See Doe v. McMillan, supra (invasion of privacy). 24 Id. 25The Brand letter proposes that the quoted language be included in S. 1578, 105th Cong.

See note 1, supra. 26See notes 11–18 and accompanying text, supra.

nity.’’ 16 On the remand, after a detailed factual inquiry which revealed that there

had been quite limited public distribution of the report, the lower courts upheld the

claim of immunity as to the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents.17 The

court of appeals on the remand expressly reserved the question of the availability

of immunity ‘‘in a case where distribution was more extensive, was specially promoted, was made in response to specific requests rather than standing orders, or

continued for a period after notice of objections was received.’’ 18

Under the caselaw reviewed above, the dissemination to the general public of CRS

products—by CRS 19 or by Members and/or their aides 20—would not be considered

a legislative act 21 but would be viewed by the courts as an exercise of Congress’

representational function, for which speech or debate immunity is not available.22

Those engaged in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS analysts who

prepare the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of judicial and administrative

proceedings. In such actions, litigants might seek, for purposes of discovery, the files

of CRS analysts or litigants might ask for damages 23 or injunctive relief barring

further distribution of a particular report or issue brief.24 Litigants might also claim

damages in suits alleging copyright infringement. It would seem that these kinds

of actions would be more likely to occur as a result of widespread electronic dissemination to the general public of CRS products than from limited distribution (common under current practice) by a congressional office of a single hard copy of a particular CRS Report or Issue Brief to a constituent.

It has been suggested that speech or debate clause concerns raised by legislation

providing for the dissemination of certain CRS products via the Internet might be

addressed by including in such legislation language stating that ‘‘nothing herein

shall be deemed or considered to diminish, qualify, condition, waive, or otherwise

affect applicability of the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, or any other privilege available to Congress, its agencies or their employees, to any CRS product

made available on the Internet under this bill.’’ 25 The effect of the suggested language is uncertain. (1) Would the courts characterize the language as ‘‘self-serving’’

and disregard it? (2) Even if not disregarded, would the effect of the language be

to deny immunity to the dissemination of CRS products on the Internet? The suggested language would not immunize CRS products but would simply seek to have

the courts treat ‘‘any CRS product made available on the Internet’’ in the same way

that they would treat any other information disseminated by Congress or its agents

to the general public—i.e., as unprotected.26 (3) Because the proposed language applies only to CRS products made available on the Internet, would it have any impact
150

27See pp. 5–8, infra. 28See In the Matter of Exxon Corporation, et al., FTC Docket No. 8934, Application of November 6, 1978, at p. 18 (at request of respondents in agency proceeding, FTC administrative law

judge issued subpoena seeking discovery of, inter alia, CRS ‘‘reports on the oil industry in connection with House and Senate subcommittee studies of the oil industry and in connection with

congressional preparation of bills relating to energy matters’’), subsequent ruling, In re Exxon

Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980); Chapman v. Space Qualified Systems Corp., 647 F. Supp.

551, 552 (N.D.Fla. 1986) (seeking discovery from GAO investigator of various materials, including ‘‘all working documents’’ related to a GAO investigation conducted at the request of a congressional committee, executive branch inspector general reports provided to GAO, and communications to GAO from Congress or congressional staff). See also Smith v. IRS, No. 3778–89 (Tax

Ct. 1990) (litigants obtained subpoena calling for the testimony of an attorney in the American

Law Division of CRS and for the production of background materials used by the attorney in

preparing a memorandum for a Member of the Senate). It might be noted that, with some frequency, litigants are seeking in discovery not only documents and depositions from congressional

support agencies but also from Members of Congress and congressional staff. See, e.g., Brown

& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995); In the Matter of the Applications of the City of El Paso, Texas, 887 F.2d 1103 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 844 F.2d 856 (D.C.Cir. 1988); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1983); United Transportation Union v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 132

F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.Me. 1990) (litigant who had previously engaged in ‘‘sweeping discovery,’’ including

depositions from, and document production by, House and Senate aides, also sought internal

congressional communications); Common Cause v. Bolger, 574 F. Supp. 672, 673–74 (D.D.C.

1982) (three-judge court), aff’d mem., 461 U.S. 911 (1983). 29See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., supra (exercise of Congress’ investigative

power). The speech or debate clause has been held to be a valid defense in an attempt to obtain

access to CRS materials prepared to aid Congress in considering legislation. See In Re Exxon

Corporation, supra. The role of the speech or debate clause as a defense in such litigation is

discussed in the Brand letter, supra note 1. 30 In actions in which litigants have sought access to its files, CRS has generally been represented by the Office of Senate Legal Counsel or the House General Counsel. For example, in

Smith v. IRS, supra, the CRS employee involved was represented by the Senate Legal Counsel

pursuant to S. Res. 291, 101st Cong. 31See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980). 32 In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703–05 (1974), the Court rejected the President’s

contention that the separation of powers doctrine barred judicial review of a claim of executive

privilege, and in support of judicial authority in such a case the Court cited several speech or

debate clause cases in which it had interpreted the immunity of Members. Id. at 704, citing Doe

v. McMillan; Gravel; Brewster; and Johnson. 33 ‘‘Courts have conducted in camera hearings, with participation by adverse parties, to determine whether materials subpoenaed from Members of Congress were within the speech or debate privilege.’’ Raveson, Unmasking the Motives of Government Decisionmakers, 63 N.C.L.Rev.

879, 968 n.523 (1985) (citing In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 596–97 (3d Cir.

1978); In Re Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. 201, 371, 491 F. Supp. 211, 213–14 (D.D.C. 1980)).

The Brand letter, supra note 1, states that in camera review is not routinely used by the courts

to settle disputes concerning the applicability of speech or debate immunity. If in camera review

is employed relatively infrequently, congressional concern over the judiciary’s use of this technique may be alleviated but not eliminated.

The case of Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42 (D.Md. 1983), was cited in

a previous CRS discussion of the possibility of in camera inspection of material when a claim

of privilege is raised. The Brand letter comments that in camera inspection of House documents

was not ordered by the court in that case. It is correct that the court did not order such an

inspection. However, in denying a congressional committee’s motion to intervene to obtain a protective order from a litigant’s subpoena seeking in discovery material as to which speech or deon concerns with regard to the effect of dissemination of Service products to the general public on attempts to gain access to CRS files? 27

2. Public dissemination of CRS products might jeopardize the confidentiality of

CRS files and hamper a claim of constitutional immunity by CRS.

Extensive distribution of CRS products to the general population would increase

public awareness of the research and analysis prepared by the Service for Congress

and could thereby intensify efforts by litigants to obtain, for purposes of discovery,

the files of CRS analysts who prepare the products. These discovery attempts might

seek not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue Briefs

but also related material from the files.28

The speech or debate clause may provide a valid defense in such discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected legislative act.29 However,

even in instances in which CRS succeeded in defending against such discovery efforts, such litigation would place a significant burden on congressional resources 30

and could make judges the arbiters of disputes concerning the confidentiality of

communications between CRS and Congress.31 Claims of speech or debate immunity

would be subject to judicial review 32 which might include in camera inspection of

material as to which a claim of privilege is made 33 and segregation of protected
151

bate immunity was claimed, the district court stated that it ‘‘should examine the relevant

documents*** in camera * * *.’’ Id. at 45 n.2. (The opinion in Benford is convoluted because

of the procedural complexity of the lengthy litigation involved. However, the court’s position

with regard to in camera review is clarified by a subsequent ruling in the same litigation, in

an opinion by the same judge. Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 565 F. Supp. 139, 141

(D.Md. 1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d 634 (4th Cir. 1984). In

that subsequent ruling, the court expressly reserved ‘‘the right to examine in camera’’ documents as to which a claim of speech or debate privilege was raised. Id. at 143.) 34The Court in Nixon upheld the authority of the district court to segregate privileged material (to be returned to the President) from material that would be admissible in the judicial proceedings for which they had been subpoenaed. 418 U.S. at 714–16. Segregation of protected from

non-protected material has also been upheld in the speech or debate context. See, e.g., United

States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 488 n.7 (1979). 35See generally Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause, 88 Yale L.J. 1280,

1286–87 n.30 (1979). The courts are divided on the question of whether the speech or debate

clause was intended to ensure confidentiality for legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d at 420 with In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597. 36For example, an analyst may prepare a CRS Report on the economic implications of a tax

cut on the basis of, inter alia, academic studies on the subject and some of the general factual

information and analysis that had been included in a confidential memorandum previously prepared for a Member of the Ways and Means Committee who requested an assessment of a draft

bill. Of course, because of the confidential relationship of CRS with its congressional clients,

none of the specific analysis of the draft bill included in that memorandum would appear in,

or be reflected, in the CRS Report. 37See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790 F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within scope of common law privilege for communications to

a legislative body); Smith v. IRS, No. 3778–89 (Tax Ct. 1990) (protecting from compulsory process background materials used by CRS staff in preparing reports and memoranda for Members);

In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for CRS documents barred by

speech or debate immunity and separation of powers doctrine; CRS performs an ‘‘essentially legislative function’’). Cf. Browning v. Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 789 F.2d 923, 929

(D.C.Cir.) (personnel actions held to be protected by speech or debate immunity if the ‘‘employee’s duties were directly related to the due functioning of the legislative process’’) (emphasis in

the original), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 996 (1986). 38For example, prior CRS Reports; other government publications. 39 CRS’s uses of copyrighted material are appropriately credited.

from non-protected material.34 Such judicial screening of legislative branch materials arguably impinges upon the interest in confidentiality served by the speech or

debate clause.35

Moreover, there is no assurance that CRS would prevail in litigating such matters. Two concerns might be highlighted. The first stems from the mix in CRS files

which commonly include, inter alia, material from research sources in the public domain, confidential CRS memoranda for Congress, and communications between Congress and the Service. Because the information contained in the different types of

documents in a particular CRS subject file is superficially similar, and because the

Service’s work for Congress is cumulative in nature (i.e., a CRS Report often builds

upon the general analysis developed in response to specific requests from Members

and congressional staff),36 there may be a risk that a court would not precisely differentiate among the types of documents and would grant litigants access not only

to publicly available information but also to confidential communications between

the Service and congressional offices.

The second concern arises from the fact that, in previous instances in which CRS

has been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the judicial or agency decision

has emphasized that CRS performs a legislative function and that its staff functions

as an adjunct of Member and committee staff.37 With wider dissemination of CRS

products to the general public, this longstanding perception of the Service and the

nature of its communications to the Congress could be altered, eventually putting

at risk speech or debate protection for the Service’s confidential work. In other

words, extensive involvement by CRS in the direct public information function could

lead courts and administrative agencies to reconsider their perception of CRS as

playing a significant and unique support role in the legislative process, and thus

some day might hamper a claim of immunity even in an instance in which CRS was

fulfilling its legislative function.

3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS materials are

made available on-line to members of the general public.

CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public domain sources,38 in

certain instances the material may be from copyrighted sources.39 To the extent
152

40 Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain copyrighted works, the permissions

are generally based on legislative use and do not explicitly cover electronic dissemination. 41 U.S. Const., art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. Speech or debate clause protection extends to activities within

the sphere of legitimate legislative activity (generally considered to be matters that are an integral part of the deliberative process by which members participate in legislative proceedings)

rather than activities that are representational or political in nature. When CRS performs a legislative function, the speech or debate clause shield provides protection from copyright infringement claims. See CRS’s purposes and duties as set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 166(d); see also Webster v. Sun Oil, supra n.27. 42 Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–553 (codified as amended at

17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.). Fair use is a judicial doctrine codified for the first time in the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. Although the Act does not define ‘‘fair use,’’ the Act lists four

illustrative factors, based on prior case law, to be considered when determining whether a use

made of a work is a fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such

use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value

of the copyrighted work. 43 17 U.S.C. § 105. Sec. 101 defines a ‘‘work of the United States Government’’ as ‘‘a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official

duties.’’ While works of the U.S. Government are not protected under U.S. copyright laws, protection may be available under the statutes of certain other countries. 44The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the following statement:

The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105 that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2)

publication or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its copyright protection in any way. (H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1976).) 45 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 106A. 46 17 U.S.C. §§ 107–120. 47 A bright-line approach to fair use is difficult if not impossible; courts examine the fair use

defense on a case-by-case basis. 48See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S. Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st

Sess. 61–62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE

GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print

1961) (hereafter REGISTER’S REPORT). 49See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73. A ‘‘matter of legitimate legislative concern’’ is not defined.

In a speech or debate clause context, protection extends to activities within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity which is generally considered to be matters that are an integral part

of the deliberative and communicative processes by which members participate in legislative

proceedings. Such matters are distinguished from those activities that are political in nature

and further interests distinct from legislative responsibility. See Gravel v. United States, supra

n.2; United States v. Brewster, supra n.1. The republication of intra-Congressional material outside Congress has been held not to be a protected legislative activity. See Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., supra n.21; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, supra n.10 at 127–28 (1979). Although

obtaining information pertinent to potential legislation is one of the ‘‘things generally done in

a session of the House’’ concerning matters within the ‘‘legitimate legislative sphere’’ (see

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881)), Congress’s ‘‘informing function’’ protected by

the speech or debate clause as part of the legislative function is that of informing itself about

that the material is copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use; 40 considers its information-gathering function protected by the speech or debate clause; 41

or believes that the intended use falls under the ‘‘fair use’’ doctrine of the Copyright

Act.42

United States copyright protection is not available for U.S. Government works.43

Those portions of a public document authored by the U.S. Government are in the

‘‘public domain’’—freely and widely available to the public without restrictions

placed on their dissemination. However, the government’s inclusion of copyrighted

material in a government publication does not thrust that material into the public

domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.44

The exclusive rights 45 of the copyright owner are qualified or limited by enumerated exceptions.46 Unless excused by a statutory exception, the unauthorized use of

a copyrighted work is considered an infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations

on the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.47

The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use of copyrighted

works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate Reports on the Copyright

Act of 1976 include the ‘‘reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings

or reports’’ among examples of fair use.48 The legislative history also contains an

observation that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents

would constitute fair use ‘‘[w]here the length of the work or excerpt published and

the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the

work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate legislative

concern * * *.’’ 49]
153

subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public. See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, at 132–33. 50Damages are limited to ‘‘reasonable and entire compensation.’’ The available remedies do

not include the other remedies for infringement available under the Copyright Act against infringing parties such as: injunctions; impoundment and disposition of the infringing articles; recovery of full costs and attorney’s fees.

The subsection provides that before such an infringement action is instituted, ‘‘the head of

the appropriate department or agency of the Government, as the case may be, is authorized to

enter into an agreement with the copyright owner in full settlement and compromise for the

damages accruing to him by reason of such infringement and to settle the claim administratively

out of available appropriations.’’ 51 As originally enacted, § 1498 applied only to suits for patent infringement against the

United States. In 1960, Congress amended § 1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86–726 provided: Nothing in this Act

shall be construed to in any way waive any immunity provided for Members of Congress under

article I of section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order ‘‘to emphasize the fact

that no immunities for Members of Congress under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall

be waived by the enactment of this legislation.’’ See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech or debate clause protection

would protect Congressional use of copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g., copyrighted material inserted into

the Congressional Record or congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of

May 26, 1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its speech or debate clause immunity when it amended § 1498. However, insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g., political activities) are concerned, it would appear as if § 1498(b) would not

shield Congress from a copyright infringement action. 52 Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that the government

only waives immunity under § 1498(b) for third-party infringements that are authorized or consented to by the government rather than for any copyright infringement that a third party may

choose to undertake). The Auerbach case, relying on the legislative history of this provision, is

the sole case construing § 1498(b). Sec. 1498(a), the sister provision waiving immunity for patent

infringements, has been interpreted more often—courts holding that such waiver is limited to

direct governmental infringement. 53 In December 1996, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted two new

intellectual property treaties—the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms

Treaties. The Copyright Treaty covers copyright protection for computer programs and for databases as intellectual works, and uses of copyrighted works in digital electronic environments,

including transmissions over the Internet. The Administration’s treaty implementation bills (S.

1121 and H.R. 2281) were introduced at the end of July 1997. Alternative WIPO implementation

bills (S. 1146 and H.R. 2180) also address additional Internet policies issues. See U.S. Library

of Congress. Congressional Research Service. World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty: An Overview (CRS Report for Congress 97–523A); and U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Online Service Provider Copyright Liability:

Analysis and Discussion of H.R. 2180 and S. 1146 (CRS Report for Congress 97–950A). See also

H.R. 3048, introduced in November 1997, which implements the WIPO treaties and updates

United States copyright laws to accommodate the developments of digital technology (addressContinued

In an infringement action, a court might regard the publication of copyrighted material in a Congressional document for legitimate legislative purposes as a ‘‘fair use.’’

If, however, the use is outside of such legislative purposes, it is possible that a traditional fair use analysis might result in liability for copyright infringement. Wider

dissemination outside the confine of Congress would further complicate the ‘‘fair

use’’ question. While courts appear to be applying the same fair use analysis in infringement actions involving the electronic environment as in more traditional environments, the application of fair use in the electronic environment is still developing.

The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright infringement for

unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S. Government. Subsection

1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright infringement by the United States is an action against the

United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ‘‘for the recovery

of * * * reasonable and entire compensation*** including the minimum statutory damages * * *.’’ 50 Speech or debate clause immunity is not waived under

§ 1498(b); however, activities outside of the legislative sphere would not be shielded

from a copyright infringement action.51 The one case interpreting § 1498(b) narrowly

construed the governmental waiver—relying on general construction of such waivers

and on prior interpretation of a similar provision.52]

The protection of intellectual property rights in the information age and the balance between copyright owners’ exclusive rights to control the uses of their creative

works and the public’s right of fair use of and access to copyrighted works are being

addressed by Congress 53 and the courts.
154

ing, e.g., ‘‘fair use,’’ ‘‘first sale,’’ and distance learning). H.R. 2652, the ‘‘Collections of Information Antipiracy Act’’ would create sui generis protection, distinct from copyright protection, for

collections of facts, data or works of authorship. Government collections of information are excluded. Exceptions address acts such as the extraction of insubstantial parts of collections of information; independent gathering of information; non-profit educational, scientific or research

uses; and extraction for news reporting. The bill responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) which held that comprehensive collections of facts arranged in conventional formats were not protected and could

not be constitutionally protected under copyright. For an overview of legislative proposals introduced in the 104th Congress, see U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.

Copyright Proposals for the National Information Infrastructure (CRS Report for Congress 95–

1166A). 54Liability, however, would be limited by the exclusive remedies provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 1498(b). Copyright owners may not wish to assume the costs associated with § 1498(b) litigation in light of the limited damages that are available under this section. 55 REGISTER’S REPORT, supra n.39 at 6:

Within reasonable limits, the interests of authors coincide with those of the public. Both will

usually benefit from the widest possible dissemination of the author’s works. But it is often cumbersome for would-be users to seek out the copyright owner and get his permission. There are

many situations in which copyright restrictions would inhibit dissemination, with little or no

benefit to the author. And the interests of authors must yield to the public welfare where they

conflict.*** While some limitations and conditions on copyright are essential in the public

interest, they should not be so burdensome and strict as to deprive authors of their just

reward * * *. 56For example, notifying the public that although there are no restrictions on the replication

of CRS materials—copyrighted materials contained therein may not be used without permission

of the copyright owner.

In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose and limited to the print (rather

than the electronic) environment.

If access is broadened to members of the general public, congressional release may

be outside the scope of ‘‘legitimate legislative purpose.’’ In such cases, a traditional

fair use analysis may not provide an affirmative defense to an infringement action

and liability could attach.54

The copyright law is intended to foster the creation and dissemination of intellectual works for the public welfare and to reward authors for their contribution to society. Striking a fair balance between the authors’ exclusive rights to control the dissemination of their works and the public interest 55 is ever more challenging in the

electronic environment.

Public interest in dissemination of government documents must be weighed

against the legitimate governmental purposes that are served in the Government’s

exercise of due diligence in not infringing copyrights (e.g., restricting the public’s

use of proprietary information incorporated in a government document). Although

it may be possible to limit liability to some extent by taking certain diligent measures,56 some degree of liability may continue to exist. There is some risk of assertion

of copyright infringement if CRS materials containing proprietary material (and intended to support congressional needs) are made available on a wholesale basis online to members of the general public.

ATTACHMENT A.—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE, S.

1578—CRS WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC USE, PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET

SUMMARY OF CBO PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET FOR S. 1578 [105TH CONGRESS]—CRS WEBSITE

FOR PUBLIC USE 1

Cost elements

Lower bound estimate (includes

start-up costs)

Upper bound estimate (includes

costs of full

phase-in)

Direct Costs (programmers; financial costs of increased interactions with

the public) ................................................................................................. $220,300 $467,963

Indirect Costs (start-up plus added product review procedures, tracking,

legal and administrative costs) ................................................................ 358,560 202,051

Additional demand (costs of increased number of congressional and public requests) ............................................................................................... 1,292,060 6,460,300
155

SUMMARY OF CBO PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET FOR S. 1578 [105TH CONGRESS]—CRS WEBSITE

FOR PUBLIC USE 1—Continued

Cost elements

Lower bound estimate (includes

start-up costs)

Upper bound estimate (includes

costs of full

phase-in)

Estimated Added Costs .................................................................... 1,870,920 7,130,314

Estimated Added Costs as a percent of fiscal year 1998 budget ............... 2.90 11.04

1 S. 393 and H.R. 654, bills introduced in the 106th Congress, are similar to S. 1578 (105th Congress). Accordingly,

the estimated costs of implementing the current bills would appear to be generally comparable to the estimated costs

contained in the CBO preliminary worksheet for S. 1578.

Mr. MULHOLLAN. In particular, I would like to note that the preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found that

last year’s proposal could cost CRS as much as $7 million each

year. The current bills do not significantly alter the assumptions on

which that estimate is based.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, I fully appreciate the budgetary constraints before this subcommittee as it crafts appropriations for the Legislative Branch. It is for that reason that our request is limited to the funds essential to sustain our current efforts.

Our top priority is to provide Congress with efficient, cost effective support that meets your highest standards for quality, comprehensiveness, accuracy, objectivity, and nonpartisanship.

Thank you.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

REPROGRAMMING FISCAL 1999 FUNDING TO EVALUATE PERSONNEL

SYSTEM

The Library is requesting authority to reprogram $400,000 in fiscal year 1999 funds to evaluate the personnel system. What do you

hope that evaluation will accomplish?

Will it result in savings in personnel costs or is it aimed primarily at trying to increase efficiency with costs remaining where

they are? Give me a feel for this.

Senator BENNETT. I think the Deputy Librarian will address this

most efficiently.

General SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Library of Congress is currently facing a unique opportunity

and challenge in that 45 percent of our workforce will be eligible

to retire by the year 2004.

Currently we have about 125 people that we replace every year.

When we extrapolate a fraction of that 50 percent over each year

between now and 2004, we could be inundated with more than

twice the number that we would normally have to replace were we

not to embark on a contingency that would allow us to hire and fill

vacancies in a timely manner and also take advantage of this opportunity to streamline our system.

The deliverables that we would hope to accomplish, with your approval of this reprogramming process, are these:

We would develop a short-term plan that would help us to replace people in excess of the numbers that we normally have to
156

deal with—that’s short-term. We would also be able to start an integrated plan that would see us design, examine, and implement

pilots that would streamline our entire hiring process for the outyears.

For this money we would be getting immediate help in terms of

a contingency plan. We would also obtain outside help with a

transformation plan that we would devise and implement over the

next 4 years.

Senator BENNETT. This calls on a crystal ball, but do you have

any sense about available applicants? You commented, Dr.

Billington, that this is a unique kind of employment with almost

one-of-a-kind sort of jobs there. As the body of expertise represented by your present personnel ‘‘graduates,’’ if you will, is there

a pool of people willing to come into this kind of work behind them?

Or should there be some recruiting efforts connected with your

evaluation?

General SCOTT. Yes, sir, we have surveys that both CRS and Library Services have conducted which have identified the professionals who, if they left, would create a tremendous void. With

that, we have developed a succession plan including recruitment to

backfill the critical spaces should those staff leave next year or the

year after. We do have a plan in place that would allow us to fill

those critical positions.

Dr. BILLINGTON. Let me just add a word on that and then Mr.

Mulhollan may want to say something more.

As General Scott pointed out, we do have not only this plan to

recruit these people but a specific plan. Because these jobs are so

one-of-a-kind, you cannot just hire somebody, so to speak, off the

street or out of some other position because nothing is quite analogous to most of the jobs in the Library of Congress.

SUCCESSION PLANNING

So the succession planning, which is an important part of our

budget submission this year, would bring in some people who could

be mentored by the people who are in, in effect, mission critical positions. This is particularly important where there is collective

memory in CRS, and I am sure Mr. Mulhollan will speak to this.

But it is also important in Library Services, where for these immense collections there is knowledge that is in people’s heads. Here

we have a very small turnover; 17 to 20 years is about the average

time of service. So it is very important that the knowledge in their

heads be transported, transformed, be passed on, as it were, to

other employees.

That is why the succession planning that we are applying for this

year and that you were kind enough to begin helping us within

CRS last year is so important, both to CRS and to Library Services.

We want to continue to have efficient navigators through this great

storehouse of information.

You may want to add to that, Mr. Mulhollan.

CRS RECRUITMENT PROGRAM

Mr. MULHOLLAN. What the Congressional Research Service did

back in 1996 is survey the roughly 300 people who are eligible to

retire. We had over 95 percent participation.
157

What we then did is an analysis of those who said they would

be retiring in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Two-thirds of those eligible between now and 2006 told us that they would be retiring during that period of time.

Senator BENNETT. You do not allow them to believe in odd-numbered years, then? [Laughter.]

Mr. MULHOLLAN. We are clustering there. We think in terms of

Congresses.

We then identified people in each subject area. Say that we had

6 people as a baseline for January 1, 1997. If we had 6 people in

Natural Resources and 3 of those were retiring by 2002, we would

say that we were at 50 percent risk.

We then established an aggressive recruitment program throughout the country, including Utah and California. We went to the

public policy schools and the graduate schools, and met with the

deans and the heads of the public policy schools. We told them

about a program where we use law and graduate recruit programs

to recruit at the law schools and graduate schools once we identify

those subject areas most at risk. Then we began recruiting, trying

to get the best and the brightest in the country, to serve the Congress.

Gratefully, a large number of young people are captured by serving, to help insure the continuing functioning of democracy.

In some business schools it is a little harder, to be perfectly

frank. They would have to make a sacrifice. We are talking about

only being able to offer a third of the salaries that they could get

on the outside. There are some public policy schools where we face

the same problems as well.

Notwithstanding that—we pushed for public service—we then

align those subject areas to where our greatest risk is in trying to

get them to come in during the summer. We have 20 grad recruits

this coming summer, in 1999, in various areas. We fund them for

the summer. If they like us and we like them, we can offer them

a position and they will have another year to complete their Master’s or their Ph.D.

That is the major recruitment program that we have revived to

meet this challenge.

When we bring them on-board into CRS, it takes quite a while,

even if you have a Ph.D. in economics, to be able to work in this

environment. Some schools are very strong in giving students some

of these skills in addition to the knowledge of their discipline our

new employees need to be able to compartmentalize. This is because, as an analyst, you have to work with the Majority and Minority in one chamber and compartmentalize so that the information that you receive from one never interferes or gets shared with

the other.

So it takes time to carry four compartments, as an example, to

learn how you can manage serving both chambers and both sides

of the aisle, as well as understanding your discipline in the context

of the writing of law.

We say that it takes between 3 and 5 years to do that kind of

training and, hopefully, with the people who have been here for 20-

plus years, we can pass on that knowledge and skill.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.
158

That is very helpful and it is encouraging that you are doing this

kind of detail.

ILS PROJECT

The Integrated Library System originally was projected to cost

$15 million over 7 years. It now is estimated that it will cost $270

more in fiscal year 2000 and $17 million over the course of the

project.

Can you go over that with us, why the project is over budget,

whether it is still on time, whether there will be further increases

that we might look for?

Dr. BILLINGTON. Again, I would look to our Chief Operating Officer, General Scott, on this matter.

General SCOTT. Yes, sir.

As you pointed out, Senator, we estimated a figure that proved

to be less than the actual contract value in two areas: the 5-year

contract cost for hardware maintenance is $700,000 higher than we

estimated. The 5-year contract cost for software maintenance is

$1.2 million higher than we estimated.

Both of those came in higher on the final contract than what we

had originally expected.

We believe that the ILS program will add the anticipated increase in equipment and maintenance costs to the Library’s request

for funding beginning in 2001. We think that what we are going

to ask for will satisfy the maintenance and the software costs for

those out-years.

Dr. BILLINGTON. Those original estimates were made by an outside company, Abacus Abacus, in 1996. So they were estimates that

were professionally given to us from the outside on the basis of

market conditions at that time. They were not as far-seeing as they

might have been.

Senator BENNETT. Senator Feinstein.

IMPACT OF THE POTENTIAL RETIREMENTS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just for a moment go

back to the subject that you raised.

I am a big fan of the Library. If I were in your shoes, Dr.

Billington, I just don’t know, but a loss of almost 50 percent of the

institutional memory of the institution in this short period of time

would really concern me very greatly.

Could I ask you this question? Are most of these retirements on

one level or are they spread throughout the institutional hierarchy?

Dr. BILLINGTON. I think they are spread fairly evenly throughout

the institution. But they are particularly potentially devastating in

terms of the curators, for instance, of our foreign and special collections.

There was a great deal of hiring in the immediate post-war period and after Sputnik. It was very big. People are now reaching

retirement age throughout the system.

I can give you the exact breakdown in terms of the levels.

Senator FEINSTEIN. But a lot of them are on the level of curator?
159

CAREER ENHANCEMENT SUCCESSION PLAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. A lot of them are at the curatorial level, yes.

This is why we think it is extremely important to have succession

planning. That is particularly important.

The career enhancement succession plan that we submitted to

you is designed to help insulate us largely from the retirements of

the professional staff who are primarily in grades GS–12 and GS–

13.

These are pretty substantial; 25 percent, actually, of Library

Services staff are already eligible for retirement. There will be

added another 25 percent in the following 5 years. It is a very immediate problem.

In fiscal year 1998, 40 retired. We have not had that devastating

a retirement problem yet. We are talking about those who are eligible to retire. They don’t have to retire. Still, it is a very serious

problem. This is why we have to have some overlap with people

coming in. This is why the succession planning is so important that

we have presented to the committee this year.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So by ‘‘succession planning,’’ you would essentially mean a staggering of the retirements?

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we cannot determine, once people are eligible to retire, when they will retire. Most employees who have

served that long have a certain loyalty and dedication to their work

and to see that it continues to be performed well. We expect a lot

of voluntary cooperation to avoid creating a sudden rush.

But since we cannot control it, we feel it is very important to hire

people, particularly in some of the areas where we are very highly

dependent on individuals with an immense amount of knowledge

which cannot really be written down and easily transferred.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Name some of those areas just so I can get

a sense of it.

Dr. BILLINGTON. There are curators who have for instance an extraordinary knowledge of the history of American music, for which

we have one curator in particular of whom I am thinking, though

there are several who have extensive knowledge that is really

unequalled anywhere else. Of course, we have, by far, the largest

collection of American music in the world—in all forms, sheet

music, recorded sound, et cetera.

The entire entertainment industry depends, in many ways, on

the memory of some of these people.

Another example would be in conservation. We give 400,000

items conservation treatment—technical, chemical conservation

treatment—of one kind or another every year. There are people

who know the whole history of different efforts of conservation, who

can tell by the feel of different materials exactly what is the appropriate thing to use. Those are all highly, highly technical skills.

Or, there are staff members who are knowledgeable in some foreign language area who are very difficult to replace. In the Law Library, we have staff who know both the language and the legal systems of Third World countries which can suddenly become important.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you this. Take, for example, just

the music aspect of it. Is it possible to ask your curators to give
160

you, say, a year’s notice of when they might retire so that you can

begin to reach out into the effective communities?

Dr. BILLINGTON. That is a very good suggestion. In fact, generally they do give us pretty good notice. Our curators are such

dedicated folks that they have as much of a concern as you and I

do that the continuity be maintained. So we usually get pretty good

notice.

But that is a good idea and perhaps we ought to make that a

standard operating procedure.

It is very important to know that one of the marvels of having

the depth of such collections as we have is that the staff who work

with them acquire just immense knowledge for which there is no

equal. You cannot hire any professor of music in the country that

will have the same knowledge.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. That is evident. When I came back

here, why that Library was just astounding. So it really hit me

when you said that you were expecting a 40 percent retirement

within, essentially, a 5 year period of time. That kind of means a

whole turnover in the focus of the institution.

Dr. BILLINGTON. They are eligible for retirement. But we cannot

lose them all at once.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And there is not a mandatory age for retirement, either. I mean, people can stay if they wish.

Dr. BILLINGTON. That’s right. Generally speaking, people can

stay on.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you think that will be the case?

Dr. BILLINGTON. We hope so and we think so. But, again, these

staff members have served a long time and we cannot dictate to

them.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, life changes.

Dr. BILLINGTON. With less FTEs than we had some years ago,

the burdens of people are increasing. As they get older, sometimes

that is difficult. For instance, our special collections normally serve

a few professional scholars, but they are now producing materials

that are going out on the Web for school children. We are getting

tremendous usage from the Web and the National Digital Library.

Staff members have a new obligation to communicate their

knowledge to a national audience. It’s not just professional scholars

but now it is everyone from school children to retirees. There is a

big usage of our National Digital Library by people who have retired who are developing interests, intellectual interests, through

the use of this material. That is a responsibility of our curators as

well.

The work burden is heavy. But we can do this rationally if we

receive the help that we are requesting from the committee this

year.

PERSONNEL SYSTEM

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now if I understand you correctly, you are

also reprogramming $400,000 to take a look at the personnel system. That is a separate reprogramming?

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And that is expected to achieve what in your

view?
161

Dr. BILLINGTON. I will let General Scott address that.

General SCOTT. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.

Our personnel system at the Library of Congress is 53 years old

and we have many provisions which prevent us from hiring in a

timely manner.

On average, it takes us about 125 days to get a vacancy through

the entire process. We would take advantage of this opportunity,

since we have this window in which we have so many people leaving, to examine alternatives to the traditional hiring process which

would give us greater flexibility in direct hire authority. It also

could give us the opportunity to have pay-per-performance rather

than the current system which is pay-by-tenure, so to speak. The $400,000 that we are asking to be reprogrammed would give

us the opportunity to have a contingency in the event that a fraction of the people that we are talking about choose to leave next

year.

The numbers are these: if our current FTE base remains the

same, about 4,600 employees, 50 percent of that number would be

over 2,000. If just 10 percent of those retired next year, we would

be adding over 200 vacancies on top of the normal 125. With this

money, we could develop a plan for how we will get these additional people hired in the event that 10 percent decide to go next

year?

The money will also help us to realize pilots to streamline the

hiring process and improve the classification process, so that over

the next 2 to 3 year period we could examine, improve and implement mechanisms that work, with the end result of a new hiring

process for the Library of Congress that is both flexible and fair.

COPYRIGHT FEES INCREASE

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very, very much.

I have just one quick question on the Copyright fee increase. You have increased your most frequent fee from $20 to $30, a 50 percent increase. Is there much objection to that from the Copyright

related public?

Coming from a big intellectual property State, I am just curious

here.

Dr. BILLINGTON. Ms. Peters will address that.

Ms. PETERS. We went to the Congress to seek help; it passed a

law which put in place the system that we now have, which required the Copyright Office to have outside consultants do a cost

analysis of all of our fee services.

The cost analysis for the basic registration fee was $45. The legislation also allows us to take into account fairness, equity, and the

objectives of the system. So basic proposal was $45; we had an alternative proposal which would have given a subsidy to individual

authors. Our ultimate decision, however, was $30.

So I can tell you that most people are happy with the $30, compared to the $45.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now that’s a good way of doing it. [Laughter.]

Ms. PETERS. The other thing is that I met with every author

group before we even made our proposal. The reaction on the whole

has been rather favorable.
162

So we do not expect much objection.

Senator FEINSTEIN. What you are saying, though, is even at the $30 level, that does not really cover costs?

Ms. PETERS. No.

We went to full cost recovery for all fee services except the basic

registration fee. Fees will bring in 70 percent of the money that it

takes to operate the Copyright Office. We have programs, such as

our policy programs, public information programs and the mandatory deposit system which brings material into the Library of Congress from people who choose not to register their works, that are

covered by appropriated funds.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Do you have any additional questions?

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. I think that completes it for me, Mr.

Chairman. But I would just say that I am the biggest fan of both

CRS and the Library. I think this is one of the very best things

the Federal Government does.

Senator BENNETT. I agree absolutely.

I have one last question. Mr. Mulhollan, you mentioned this in

your remarks, but I want to get it focused and crystallized.

CONCERNS OF PUTTING CRS PRODUCTS ONLINE

Senator McCain has introduced legislation to require posting of

CRS products on the Internet. While this bill is different from the

one introduced to the last Congress, I am assuming that you are

still concerned about the impact that it would have and I would

like to give you an opportunity to comment on the impact of the

new bill so when it comes up on the floor or wherever, we will have

the benefit of your specific comment on the bill issue.

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you, Senator.

Again, I appreciate the compliments inherent in the measure and

the proposal itself, and the changes it made, one of which is to

have the CRS material on the Senate website. I do believe it intends to try to address some of the legal issues we had identified.

As you recall, speech and debate protections are focused on the

legislative function, not the informing function. As a result, the

concern would be that if the wholesale dissemination of the Service’s products are put up, the courts would see us as having an informing function, not focused on legislation.

The Senate Legal Counsel is currently defending CRS against a

discovery right now in fact. We have always won these discoveries,

particularly leading with the speech and debate protections, and

sustained the position that our sole client is Congress and that as

our work is focused on the Congress, it is a legislative function.

The concern that I have is that the basis of most of those works

that are distributed to all Members of Congress, is the research for

the confidential memoranda—there were 2,400 last year—and

briefings that we did on our research. The risk is that underpinning could be exposed and be on a court docket under discovery because they would go behind the report to get original, and confidential material.

So that is still a primary concern. So I am looking to those measures.
163

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee took seriously

the concerns and sent out a Dear Colleague letter last year that

urged members and committees to select those items that they

deemed appropriate for use by their constituents and to place them

on their Web sites.

That’s fine. CRS products have always been placed in committee

hearings and submitted for the record, as chosen by that Member.

The concern is not that the selection will not be there but the

wholesale dissemination of the Service’s products. That, I think, is

a critical role. I believe, as a matter of principle, as we discussed

last year, it is appropriate for a constituent to go to the Senator,

whom they elect and for whom they have responsibilities, when

they have a question on legislation, not to an unelected bureaucracy. We serve you and support you on those issues.

Another concern, of course, is the fact, as you very well know,

that the Legislative Branch is severely constrained in funding. We

anticipate, as part of the cost estimate, that those costs range between $2 million and $7 million, and that, in fact, it would represent a shift of focus of scarce resources to a public function and

away from serving Congress.

To be perfectly frank, I feel that we are doing our best to help

Congress with legislation. But I feel that Congress needs more help

and that, anything that shifts resources away from Congress and

to serving the public, will diminish our capacity to help with the

legislative function.

In addition, over time it may shift our focus. The concern is

that—and I am someone who pays attention and everyone tries to

maintain their professional ties—if the products become more and

more open as public documents, it could shift analysts’ focus to

their association and their professional expertise rather than the

legislative work at hand and this is the focus that we are trying

to get for you.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I appreciate that and we appreciate your frankness last year. I am glad to have an update on the

legislation this year. I have decided not to co-sponsor that particular piece of legislation.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming and we will

do our very best to give you the support you need.

(165)

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES

WELCOMING REMARKS

Senator BENNETT. Our second witness is Mr. David Walker,

Comptroller General of the United States.

We are delighted to welcome you sir, if for no other reason, than

that I will no longer have to hear Senator Dorgan complain about

the fact that the office is still vacant.

I always joined in those complaints with him. I never criticized

him because I think his crusade to get that done was very well

placed.

We miss Senator Dorgan on the subcommittee. But we are delighted you are here. We look forward to hearing your plans for the

agency. You have been there for all of 6 months. So, naturally, you

have all of the answers by now. [Laughter.]

I also want to acknowledge Jim Hinchman. His services as Acting Comptroller General during the interim period were very much

appreciated. He had a difficult job to execute.

We want you to know, Mr. Hinchman, that the committee appreciates your stewardship of the agency during some difficult times.

When we went through the downsizing experience the full burden

fell on you.

Mr. Walker, your agency was in good hands while it was waiting

for your arrival.

Mr. HINCHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. The GAO requests $388.9 million for fiscal

year 2000. As an old retailer, I know the difference in price points

and the ‘‘.9’’ sounds good.

This is a 9 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 level.

I do want to make one other comment—again, my obsession with

Y2K problems. The Y2K issue would not be as close to a resolution

as it is if it were not for the GAO.

Of all the agencies in the government, the GAO has been the

most forthcoming, has had the highest level of expertise, and the

greatest amount of candor than any government agency that we

have dealt with.

Wearing my other hat, as chairman of the Senate Committee on

the Year 2000, I can tell you we would not have been able to function without the GAO and without the high level of professionalism

and honesty that they have brought to that challenge.

So, while we were cutting you back on the one hand, we were

giving you additional duties on the other, and the agency has responded magnificently well.

Senator Feinstein.
166

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think he ought to stop while he is so far

ahead, Mr. Chairman. Those were very nice comments. [Laughter.]

Mr. WALKER. Can I get my pension today, Mr. Chairman?

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. English just mentioned to me that this

is Mr. Walker’s first time here. It might be appropriate to put a

biographical sketch in the record.

Senator BENNETT. I think that would be appropriate.

If you could, furnish us with what you think is appropriate for

the committee. We would appreciate that.

Mr. WALKER. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DAVID M. WALKER

David M. Walker was sworn in on November 9, 1998 at the age of 47, as the 7th

Comptroller General of the United States in the agency’s 77-year history. Before

coming to GAO, Mr. Walker served at Arthur Andersen & Company in Atlanta as

a partner and global managing director of the firm’s human capital services practice. Mr. Walker was head of the firm’s work in helping organizations maximize

their investments in human capital. He also was in charge of the firm’s employee

benefit plan audit/assurance and independent fiduciary/risk management practices,

and served on the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors. His work, international in scope, involved engagements in a wide range of public and private sector

organizations, including government, financial services, institutional funds, insurance, transportation, manufacturing, health care, professional services, telecommunications, utilities, agriculture, defense contracting, retail, real estate, and

energy. He is a co-author of the recent book ‘‘Delivering on the Promise: How to Attract, Manage, and Retain Human Capital’’; and the author of ‘‘Retirement Security:

Understanding and Planning Your Financial Future’’, published in 1997.

After graduating from Jacksonville University in Florida where he earned a B.S.

degree in accounting in 1973, Mr. Walker who is a CPA and registered investment

advisor, worked in auditing at Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse, and in

regional operations management with Source Services Corporation, an international

human resources consulting and search firm, and Coopers & Lybrand. His 12 years

of federal experience—from 1983 to 1995—included service as acting head of the

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, as Assistant Secretary of Labor for pension

and welfare benefit programs, and as a public trustee of the Social Security and

Medicare trust funds. Mr. Walker has also earned an SMG certificate in public policy from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Mr. Walker was born on October 2, 1951 in Birmingham, Alabama, was married

in 1970 to Mary Etheredge, and is the father of two grown children, Carol and Andrew.

Senator BENNETT. He comes from the private sector of consulting

and accounting. I have forgotten which was your firm—Arthur Andersen?

Mr. WALKER. Arthur Andersen most recently and Price

Waterhouse Coopers previously.

Senator BENNETT. We are delighted to have you here. We welcome you. We hope this will always be if not a happy at least a

somewhat satisfying annual experience for you.

HIGHLIGHTS OF GAO ACTIVITIES

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein. It is

a pleasure to be here.

As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am new in the job—4 months on

the calendar but 6 months on the clock. You were probably going

by the clock, I would imagine. We have had some fairly long hours

lately.
167

I would like to add my thanks, as well, to your remarks about

Jim Hinchman. He did an excellent job during the 2-year tenure

under very difficult circumstances. The appointment process

dragged on for about 16 months after it got started. It went from

me being patient to being persistent, to persevering, to pain. But,

finally, it got done.

Senator BENNETT. Not to panic, of course. [Laughter.]

Mr. WALKER. No, not to panic. I did not get to that point or else

I would not be here. [Laughter.]

Mostly it was every other word beginning with ‘‘P’’ that I can

think of, Senator. But, fortunately, it is over and I only have to go

through it one time in my life. So I am looking forward to the next

14 years and 8 months.

It is truly an honor and a pleasure to be part of the GAO team.

As you have probably heard me say before, I believe the GAO is

one of the best, if not the best, agencies in the Federal Government

and clearly one of the most important.

As you know, we are a multidisciplinary professional services organization. I have headed several multidisciplinary professional

services organizations before in the private and public sectors. I

have had two prior presidential appointments before taking this

third one. I previously served as a public trustee of Social Security

and Medicare and as Assistant Secretary of Labor for ERISA. I also

ran the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. I ran Arthur Andersen’s Human Capital Services practice globally and now have

responsibility for the GAO.

The Congress is our client. We are a service organization. This

has to be first and foremost in our mind. We have to be client focused. We have a number of initiatives underway to enhance our

client focus and to support the Congress even better than we have

in the past.

We are your front line troops. Quite candidly, Mr. Chairman and

Senator Feinstein, at a time when there has been significant

downsizing and we have experienced a 39 percent head-count reduction from our peak in 1992 and at a time where Congress itself

has had a significant downsizing in staff, increased staff turnover,

and less average tenure on Congressional staff. GAO is going to be

more important in the years ahead in order to put the Congress on

a level playing field with the Executive Branch, regardless of who

is in charge of the Executive Branch.

We are going to be increasingly important.

Our name is somewhat of a misnomer. We are called the ‘‘General Accounting Office,’’ and that is a challenge because when you

say ‘‘accounting,’’ people tend to stereotype you. But the fact of the

matter is less than 25 percent of what we do is about accounting

and auditing.

Accountability is what we are all about. We do accounting, we do

auditing, we do investigations, we do program reviews, we do policy

analysis, we render legal judgments—it is all about accountability.

We are committed to three core values—which I think are important to articulate—to serve the Congress and the American people.

The first is accountability. That is what we do. We help the Congress oversee the Executive Branch. We help make sure that the

government works for the benefit of the American people.
168

The second is integrity. That is how we do what we do—professional, objective, fact based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and

balanced.

Third, reliability, is how we want what we do to be received by

the Congress—timely, accurate, useful, clear, and candid. It’s just

the facts. We say what we mean, we mean what we say, and we

try to help the Congress do a better job for the American people.

Our objectives are generally three. First, I think it is our job to

help the Congress continuously improve the economy, efficiency,

and effectiveness of the Federal Government for the benefit of the

American people.

Second, we want to be a world class organization that leads by

example. We are the agency that reviews others. It is imperative,

therefore, that we be as good or better than any other agency. Otherwise we would be hypocrites, and I don’t like being a hypocrite.

I won’t be a hypocrite.

Third, working together in a partnership, as we have on Y2K and

many other areas, we cannot only make a difference in economy,

efficiency, and effectiveness, but, hopefully, we can also help to improve the people’s confidence in and respect for their government,

which I think we would all hope to achieve.

With regard to our budget request, I am not asking for any FTE

increases. I believe it would be premature and inappropriate to do

that. I am only 4 months on the job. I have done a lot of due diligence, I have done a lot of work, but I need to do more in order

to be able to make a considered judgment on FTE levels.

I am asking for some targeted investments to help us improve

our efficiency and effectiveness in order to increase our flexibility

such that we can improve our timeliness and better serve the Congress, and to understand how best to prepare ourselves for the 21st

Century. I will touch on those in a few minutes.

As far as results, I think it is important to consider the results;

96 percent of our work is Congressionally directed. That is up from

about 33 percent, when Elmer Staats left in 1980. About 4 percent

is self-initiated now. Our service is both to the Majority and Minority.

SELF-INITIATED WORK

Senator BENNETT. Run through those numbers again. You said

96 percent and that is up from 33 percent.

Mr. WALKER. Right.

Senator BENNETT. Do you mean 33 percent was self-directed and

now it is down to 4 percent?

Mr. WALKER. Well, actually, about 66 percent was self-directed

when Elmer Staats left in 1980. You are correct and I think it is

good to clarify it for the record. About 66 percent was self-directed

in 1980, when Elmer Staats left office, and now it is down to 4 percent.

Senator BENNETT. Now it is down to 4 percent. All right.

Mr. WALKER. This is one of the consequences of the downsizing,

because our mandates are going up, and our Congressional requests are going up. But obviously we have 39 percent less staff.

Something has to give. We have improved productivity, we have

improved efficiency, but what gives is self-initiated work.
169

I think, importantly, I would like to provide for the record, if it

is all right, Mr. Chairman, three ‘‘Top Ten’’ lists that we have put

together to try to help the Congress understand the benefits of

GAO.

[The information follows:]

TOP TEN SELF-INITIATED TOPICS

Savings and Loan Crisis

Before the savings and loan situation reached crisis proportions, GAO advised the

Congress that the thrift industry’s problems were not just related to a then unfavorable interest rate spread, but that a much larger asset quality problem existed.

GAO’s annual financial statement audits of the deposit insurance funds and additional analyses of industry and regulatory problems showed that serious internal

control weaknesses and deficient corporate governance as well as weaknesses in the

regulatory structure were major factors contributing to the failure of thrifts and the

subsequent cost to the taxpayers. GAO’s work contributed to the development of legislation to address these identified weaknesses.

Year 2000 Computing Challenge

In early 1997 GAO alerted the Congress, through its High Risk series, to the government’s exposure to Year 2000 risks. Working closely with the Congress, GAO

issued over 70 reports detailing specific findings, made over 100 recommendations

to agency heads and to the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion to improve

readiness and produced a set of three essential guides to help domestic and international organizations structure programs to confront the problem.

Information Security

During the last 4 years, GAO has played an instrumental role in focusing attention on actions needed to mitigate an alarming and increasing array of information

security risks. From national security to personal privacy, GAO has issued numerous reports identifying weaknesses and recommending corrective actions. GAO’s reports have spurred congressional hearings on the topic, which have clarified the

issues and set expectations for process and system reforms.

Nuclear Cleanup

In the early 1980’s GAO began sounding the alarm about the ineffective safety

oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear facilities as well as the massive

problems it faced in attempting to address the legacy of environmental contamination created by decades of nuclear weapons production. GAO also was the first to

alert the Congress that the cost of cleanup would be over $100 billion—an estimate

that has now grown to $235 billion.

Medicare

GAO reported to the Congress that excess payments were being made to Medicare

home health providers and Medicare HMO’s. The home health care industry was

growing rapidly—from $2.7 billion in 1989 to $17.8 billion in 1997. During this

growth, the government’s scrutiny of contractors was decreasing. As for the Medicare HMO program, in one state alone, GAO identified over $1 billion in excess payments. The Congress spurred partially by such reports enacted the 1997 Balanced

Budget Act provisions to curtail excess payments for such services.

DOD Purchasing and Inventory

Knowing that many of the Department of Defense’s purchasing and inventory

management goals were not dissimilar from private industry’s, GAO devised a

methodology to match DOD’s practices against the best practices of industry and to

demonstrate in its reports and testimonies better ways of doing business. In the inventory area the work has produced budgetary savings, legislative actions and improvements in DOD’s operations. With regard to purchasing, top DOD management

has incorporated GAO’s recommendations into its own ‘‘acquisition reform’’ initiatives.

Food Safety

In 1992, GAO started a series of reviews that have highlighted fundamental

weaknesses in government systems to ensure food safety. First, GAO pointed out

that the poultry and meat inspection system which had been designed around the

turn of the century to protect against health threats from diseased animals was no

longer effective, hampered by inflexible legal requirements and outdated, labor in-
170

tensive inspection methods. GAO also reported that testing for chemicals in food

products could not detect or prevent contaminated food from entering the food supply. Since then a new approach to food safety regulation has been adopted that requires a scientific monitoring system and microbial testing for overall sanitary conditions.

Reengineering IRS

IRS collects $1.7 trillion a year to fund the federal government and likely has

more interactions with the American public than any other government agency.

GAO has, over many years, expressed concerns over management weaknesses at

IRS and how those weaknesses are manifested in the treatment of taxpayers. In

fact, 70 GAO reports were cited in the 1997 Report of the National Commission on

Restructuring the IRS that led the way for the Restructuring and Reform Act of

1998 which promises improvements in IRS’ internal management and computer

modernization as well as the treatment of taxpayers.

Aviation Safety and Security

From air traffic control to aircraft maintenance to airport security, GAO has

brought the need for improvements to the Congress’ attention. GAO’s report and

testimony in the wake of the Valujet tragedy contributed to the Federal Aviation

Administration’s decision to make oversight of new airlines a top priority. GAO’s

testimony on foreign aircraft repair stations influenced the Congress to retain FAA’s

ability to certify and oversee these stations. In 1996 GAO recommendations led to

legislation that required new security measures and require periodic reports to the

Congress from FAA on the progress and efforts to improve aviation security.

Children’s Healthcare

Beginning in 1994, GAO began assessing the health insurance status of children

and state programs aimed at expanding coverage for low-income children. GAO

issued numerous reports and testified on the issues that resulted in widely quoted

analyses documenting the failure to enroll almost 3.4 million eligible children into

Medicaid. Subsequently, the Congress and the Administration enacted the state

Children’s Health Insurance Program. This is the largest health program implemented since Medicare and Medicaid and is funded at a level to reach about half

the nation’s estimated 9 to 11.6 million uninsured children.

TOP TEN FISCAL YEAR 1998 FINANCIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

HUD Reserves

Based on GAO’s testimony, Congress rescinded $3.65 billion from HUD’s assisted

housing program because the large project reserves for section 8 housing far exceeded needs.

DOE Fund Management

GAO recommended that DOE develop a more effective methodology for analyzing

its unneeded funds. As a result, DOE identified about $1.8 billion in excess funds.

F–22 Fighter

GAO concluded that DOD planned to begin purchasing F–22 fighters before they

had demonstrated that the aircraft would operate successfully. DOD subsequently

delayed its plans to begin purchasing thereby eliminating 22 F–22 fighters and reducing the program requests for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by about $1.6 billion.

Disability Benefits

To ensure that only the truly disabled were receiving benefits, GAO recommended

that the Social Security Administration (SSA) increase its reviews of disability cases

to identify person who, because of their current health condition or work status,

were no longer eligible for benefits. In response, legislation was enacted that increased the number of reviews, and these additional reviews resulted in benefit terminations that saved the government about $1.5 billion over a two-year period.

IRS Tax Systems

GAO recommended that IRS should restructure its Tax Systems Modernization

program to address management and technical weaknesses and that the Congress

limit funding until improvements are implemented. IRS is in the process of restructuring and funding was reduced by about $1.1 billion.

F/A–18 Aircraft

GAO’s analysis showed that, for its cost, a new version of the F/A–18 aircraft offered only marginal operational improvement over existing versions. In response,
171

DOD reduced its plan buy from 1,000 to 548 aircraft, which reduced costs by about

$1.02 billion in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

DOE Budget

GAO suggested, as a result of its budget scrub work, that the Congress reduce

portions of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) request for its Environmental Management program; Congress reduced DOE’s funding by about $773.9 million.

Medicaid Drug Costs

GAO recommended to the Health Care Financing Administration that drug costs

in the Medicaid program could be reduced if states installed automated systems to

identify, prospectively, inappropriate prescriptions as well as those that could have

adverse reactions. Estimated cost savings from implementing this suggestion totaled

about $668 million fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Superfund Contract Funds

GAO recognized that the Environmental Protection Agency was not recovering

and using funds from Superfund contracts that were no longer needed. In addition,

GAO informed the Congress that EPA was not using recent and more conservative

data for estimating its budget needs. Congress did not provide the requested $650

million.

Medicare Oxygen Cost

GAO learned that Medicare payments for home oxygen were more generous than

home oxygen payments made by the Veterans Administration. As a result, Congress

reduced Medicare rates for home oxygen by 25 percent in fiscal year 1998 and an

additional 5 percent in fiscal year 1999, reducing costs over a two-year period by

about $633 million.

TOP TEN FISCAL YEAR 1998 NON-FINANCIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Surface Transportation Act

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act expired at the end of fiscal

year 1997. GAO’s analyses and testimony in November of 1997 showed that individual states lacked sufficient funds to continue planned highway projects. Congress

acted quickly and subsequently, on December 1, 1997 the President signed the Surface Transportation Act Extension that provided the needed funding.

Competitive Contracting

For several years GAO had reported that despite DOE’s policy to use competitive

contracting procedures, limited competition actually occurred. In response, Congress—as part of the fiscal year 1998 appropriations act for DOE—precluded DOE

from using appropriations for contracts that were not competed except in very limited circumstances.

IRS Computer Security

GAO summarized the computer security weaknesses identified at five IRS facilities that put critical federal operations and assets at risk. In response, IRS not only

mitigated many of the risks associated with those facilities, but also responded to

GAO’s recommendations for entity-wide security management. IRS centralized the

responsibility for security and privacy issues in an office charged with establishing

and enforcing standards and policies for all major security programs including, but

not limited to physical, data, and systems security.

Year 2000

To help federal agencies mitigate Year 2000 risks, GAO produced guides on business continuity and contingency planning and on testing. These guides are being

used by the executive branch and are the foundation for Year 2000 business continuity and contingency planning and testing, which are critical elements to addressing this urgent computing challenge. These guides are also being widely used

in the private sector and by other governments. In addition, GAO’s reports and testimonies on Year 2000 readiness have included dozens of recommendations that

have been adopted. For example, the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion,

in response to GAO’s recommendation, adopted a sector-based focus to increase

awareness and has begun developing a national assessment.

Defective Parts

In 1994 and again in 1998, GAO found that DOD was selling excess aircraft parts

that were defective and could cause flight safety problems. In response, DOD estab-
172

lished a program and has identified over 20,000 such items. These defective items

are now sold as scrap.

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

The United States had agreed—as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program—to contribute funds for the construction of facilities in Russia to destroy

chemical weapons. GAO had reported that, not only was the U.S. portion of the construction costs uncertain, but, despite U.S. funding, the U.S. did not have inspection

rights. In response, Congress included language in the 1998 Defense Authorization

Act limiting U.S. contributions and requiring such inspection access.

Health Care Financing

GAO reported that DOD had incorrectly billed the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for facilities’ services provided to Medicare-eligible persons. The facilities are paid by the Defense Department for such services and are not supposed

to bill Medicare. In response, DOD and HCFA have undertaken joint actions to preclude this from happening again.

Employment Training

GAO identified 163 federal employment-training programs and found that many

provided similar services to similar target groups. Specific differences among the

programs’ funding cycles and eligibility requirements hampered officials in providing needed services. Using GAO’s work, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

overhauled the structure of these programs and established 3 target groups and

funding streams: youth, adults, and dislocated workers.

Financial Derivatives

GAO recommended that financial regulators improve their oversight of all major

over-the-counter derivative dealers. The securities and futures regulators worked

with major U.S. securities firms and developed a voluntary self-regulatory framework-consistent with the intent of GAO’s recommendations-for derivative activities.

Employee Buy-outs

GAO’s analyses of the government’s use of buy-outs for reducing the workforce

identified areas for improvement. More specifically, GAO recommended that agencies conduct strategic and work force planning prior to receiving the buyout authority. Congress subsequently passed legislation that incorporated the intent of this

recommendation.

BENEFITS OF GAO WORK

Mr. WALKER. One of those lists is our Top Ten list of self-initiated work—things like the savings and loan crisis, Y2K, and other

issues that will resonate with both of you that started out as GAO

self-initiated work. Fortunately, leaders like you and others picked

up the ball, ran with it, and made a difference. But my concern is

if we don’t have some reasonable flexibility to do self-initiated

work, who is going to be looking at the horizon and beyond?

Realistically, the Congress tends to be focused on more immediate concerns and for understandable reasons. But somebody has

to be focused on the horizon and beyond before issues become crises, and if not GAO, then who?

So we are going to try to do what we can to improve our efficiency, but also to try to get some additional flexibility to do a little

bit more self-initiated work.

On our return on investment in fiscal year 1998, we had $58 in

financial benefits for every dollar invested in GAO. The average return on investment for the last 6 years has been $52 for every dollar invested.

I have had a significant amount of activity ongoing in the last

4 months—a new strategic planning process; an outreach effort

with the Congress in order to understand what we are doing well,

what we could do better, and how we might be able to address
173

those concerns; and a variety of other issues that are noted in my

testimony.

I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to note that the strategic

investments that we are asking for are in several areas. One is

human capital. We are a people business. We are a professional

services organization; 81 percent of our expenditures relate to people.

We are experiencing similar challenges to what were mentioned

by the Library of Congress and CRS. About 50 percent of our Senior Executive Service will be eligible to retire by the year 2004.

About 30 percent of our evaluators and auditors and investigators

will be eligible to retire by the year 2004.

We had a 5-year hiring freeze. We had to impose this hiring

freeze in order to make the drastic cuts that were necessary to

come in line with our reduced budget levels.

That has left a gap in the pipeline with regard to experience that

we have just now started to begin filling within available resources.

We have to take a hard look at recruiting and succession planning,

and we are doing that.

This is because people are our intellectual capital. We provide intellectual capital for the Congress, we provide intellectual capital

for the Nation. It is critical that we do that.

We are asking to be put on a level playing field with the Executive Branch for performance rewards. Both of you know that we

cannot compete with the private sector for compensation. We just

hope that we can continue to attract bright and dedicated people

who want to serve their country and make a difference. It is getting tougher, frankly. But, fortunately, there are still those out

there who will do it.

We cannot expect to compete with the private sector on money,

but we need at least to be able to compete with the Executive

Branch. Right now, we are in a situation where we cannot compete

with the Executive Branch because our performance reward system

is not adequately funded.

Therefore, we need to get at least on a level playing field with

the Executive Branch because we are the best recruiting source for

the Executive Branch. For example, many of the IG’s and the

CFO’s came from GAO. It is not that we don’t want to contribute,

we do. But we don’t want to have a fundamental disadvantage to

see our people leaving because of economics within the government.

We need to undertake a strategic assessment of our human capital policies and programs to better align our performance and

management reward systems with our strategic plan, to look at the

issues of recruiting, succession planning, and training. Training is

an area where we need additional targeted investment.

Information technology is important, Mr. Chairman. As you

know, we have worked with you on the Y2K issue. We want to

make sure we are not going to have a problem on Y2K. As a result,

there is a small targeted amount that we are asking for in conjunction with laptops in order to help deal with that situation.

Then last, but not least, are work processes. With regard to work

processes, every 5 years I believe any organization needs to take

a hard look at its work processes to reengineer them, to try to
174

achieve a better balance between quality, economy, efficiency, and

timeliness.

We need to do that, in part to try to get that 4 percent self-initiated work up to a more reasonable level of about 15 percent. But,

in part, quite frankly, it is to improve our timeliness and responsiveness.

There is one last thing, Mr. Chairman, which is travel.

More and more of our work is requiring us to go overseas: the

World Bank, IMF, nuclear activities in Russia—just to give you

three examples. We need some supplementation to be able to meet

the desires and needs of the Congress to address these issues and

the changing global environment.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, that concludes my prepared

remarks and I would be most pleased to answer any questions that

you might have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a great pleasure for me

to appear before you today as the Comptroller General of the United States. I am

delighted and honored to be a member of the General Accounting Office (GAO)

team.

GAO has consistently been viewed as one of the most respected agencies in the

federal government. It provides the Congress and the American people with timely,

accurate, clear, candid, and useful information on current, emerging, and longerrange government operational and program issues. GAO is a multi-disciplinary, professional service organization that helps the Congress fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Compared to private sector professional service organizations, GAO’s work

is more diverse, more complex, and more important, because we are doing the people’s work. In addition, while many organizations may assert their ability to do

some of the audit evaluation and analytical work that GAO does, they cannot come

close to the level of independence, diversity of skills or years of institutional knowledge of GAO. In fact, GAO is a brand name that is recognized and valued not only

in the United States but also around the world.

GAO: COMMITTED TO ACCOUNTABILITY, INTEGRITY, RELIABILITY

GAO is dedicated to ‘‘good government’’ through its commitment to three core values: accountability, integrity, and reliability. These core values describe what we do,

how we do it, and how we want it to be received.

Accountability describes the nature of GAO’s work. GAO helps the Congress oversee federal programs and operations to assure accountability to the American people. GAO’s evaluators, auditors, lawyers, economists, public policy analysts, information technology specialists, and other multi-disciplinary professionals seek to enhance the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the federal government, both in fact and in the eyes of the American public. GAO accomplishes its

mission through a variety of activities that include financial audits, program reviews, investigations, legal support, and policy and program analyses.

Integrity describes the high standards that GAO sets for itself in the conduct of

its work. GAO takes a professional, objective, fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced approach to all of its activities. Integrity is the foundation

of reputation, and GAO’s approach to its work assures both.

Reliability describes GAO’s goal for how its work is viewed by the Congress and

the American public. GAO produces high quality reports, testimony, briefings, legal

opinions, and other products and services that are timely, accurate, useful, clear,

and candid.

GOALS FOR GAO

I have three primary goals for GAO. First, I believe that GAO should be a worldclass organization, one that leads by example. In every major operational area, from
175

strategic planning to financial affairs, information technology, human capital practices, and client service, GAO should be the federal government’s model for best

practices. We are the agency that reviews others. As a result, we must lead by example. Second, I believe that GAO is fundamentally about ‘‘good government,’’ and

that GAO should play a major role in helping to continuously improve the economy,

efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and integrity of the federal government.

Third, I believe that what Americans think of their government and of their public

servants is important, and that one goal of GAO’s activities should be to improve

the public’s respect for and confidence in their government.

GAO TODAY: SERVICE TO THE CONGRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE

GAO provides an invaluable service to the Congress and the American people. It

makes significant contributions to congressional oversight and decision making. As

illustrated below, over the past 7 years, the percentage of GAO’s audit work conducted at the direction of the Congress has increased.

In fiscal year 1992, about 82 percent of GAO’s audit work was conducted for a

congressional committee, member of the Congress, or legislative mandate; the comparable figure in fiscal year 1998 was 96 percent. Of particular note during this period is the almost three-fold increase in audit time spent on congressionally mandated reviews. Having such a large proportion of GAO’s work congressionally directed, however, limits our flexibility in initiating program reviews under GAO’s

basic legislative authority. Much of this work is frequently requested by congressional committees having jurisdiction over the issues under review. These self-initiated reviews have contributed significantly to helping the Congress identify and address important emerging and longer-term national issues. For example, in 1990,

GAO began work on its biennial ‘‘High Risk’’ series that has helped shed light and

focus attention on problems related to government operations at greatest risk of

fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement and the billions of dollars that are at

stake. GAO also fulfills other important functions, such as issuing government auditing and financial management standards for all levels of government entities and

legal decisions on matters involving government revenues and expenditures.

As I stated previously, GAO’s work must be, among other things, non-partisan

and non-ideological. As illustrated in the following graphic, GAO has continuously

honored the requests of the majority and minority parties of the Congress over this

7-year period, regardless of who was in power. The American people will decide who

the majority and minority parties are, but we must serve both. At the same time,
176

the majority party, whichever party that is, will obviously command greater resources from GAO, since with majority status comes the responsibility for setting

the legislative agenda. At the same time, the minority party, whichever party that

is, must have access to some GAO resources. In addition, we hope to encourage

more bipartisan and bicameral requests on issues of mutual interest and concern.

Return on Investment

GAO provides significant financial benefits in return for the dollars that the Congress and the American people invest in it. In fiscal year 1998, for every dollar invested in GAO, the American people received a financial benefit of $58. For example, the Congress rescinded $3.65 billion in funding for assisted housing programs

as a result of GAO studies showing that large project reserves for Section 8 housing

far exceeded needs. As illustrated in the following table, the return on the investment in GAO has averaged over $20 billion over the last 7-year period.

FINANCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN GAO (FISCAL YEAR 1992–1998)

Fiscal year

Financial Benefits (Dollars in

millions)

Benefits per Dollar Appropriated

1992 ............................................................................................................... $36,191 $82

1993 ............................................................................................................... 14,529 33

1994 ............................................................................................................... 19,456 45

1995 ............................................................................................................... 15,831 36

1996 ............................................................................................................... 17,265 46

1997 ............................................................................................................... 20,935 63

1998 ............................................................................................................... 19,716 58

Average ............................................................................................. 20,560 52

In addition to these financial benefits, GAO’s work resulted in or contributed to

numerous improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and services, thereby enhancing taxpayers’ confidence and trust in their government. For example, to help federal agencies mitigate Year 2000 risks—an issue
177

that has been of particular interest to you, Mr. Chairman—in 1998, GAO produced

guides on business continuity and contingency planning and on testing. The executive branch, the private sector, and other governments both in the U.S. and around

the world are using these guides, and many of GAO’s recommendations on Y2K

issues have been adopted.

OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE GAO SERVICES TO THE CONGRESS

In the short time that I have been in office, I have discovered that GAO has done

a lot of things right over the past years. But I also believe in continuous improvement and in leading by example. Based on information gathered during my nomination and confirmation process, meetings with congressional members and GAO’s

senior management team, and visits to GAO headquarters and field offices, I have

identified a number of areas in which I believe that GAO can strengthen its services

to the Congress and the American people. Let me share with you some of my preliminary observations and how I plan to go about addressing them.

Actions Initiated Thus Far

During this fiscal year, I am taking a number of actions to enhance GAO’s operations and services to the Congress. I have already begun to implement a new strategic planning process, which will be completed before the end of the year, if not

sooner. We will be taking a broader, thematic look at the issues facing the government and the nation, while employing a multi-dimensional matrix management approach for addressing these issues. My goal is to take advantage of GAO’s strength

as a multi-disciplinary professional services organization and build a body of work

to help the Congress deal with these emerging issues in a timely fashion, before

they become crises.

I am also taking steps to enhance GAO’s interface with its client—the Congress.

GAO must make sure it has clearly defined, transparent, and consistent guidelines

governing our relations with the Congress, no matter which party is the majority

and which is the minority. By the end of this year, I also plan to have a program

in place for gauging, through direct contact with congressional leaders and members, the level of satisfaction with GAO’s products and services. I personally will

meet at least annually with the top congressional leaders, and other top GAO executives will meet with key committee leaders.

Last, I also am instituting a matrix management approach to how GAO does its

work. Matrix management means taking an integrated approach to mission accomplishment, transcending the boundaries among organizational components and functions, so that the capacity of the whole will exceed that of its parts. The issues with

which the Congress must contend are often multidimensional and cross-cutting, and

the questions coming GAO’s way will be increasingly diverse, complex, and demanding. Matrix management is a key to helping the Congress find integrated solutions

to the complex issues facing the nation. Importantly, GAO is a major asset to the

Congress in this regard, since it is one of the most, if not the most, diverse and experienced professional services firm on earth. In addition, all GAO professionals are

dedicated public servants who put the interests of the Congress, the nation, and the

American people ahead of their own personal interests.

Longer-Term Actions

Because of the important role that it has in government, GAO needs to be a

strong, well-managed organization that sets the standard for ‘‘good government’’ and

leads by example. However, as a result of actions taken to achieve its recent

downsizing, GAO is facing several immediate human capital, technology, and work

process challenges that must be addressed. At the same time, each of these areas

needs an in-depth study to determine the best course of action over the longer-term

before any major changes or new investments are made. After all, we must make

sure that we are getting the most from our current resource allocation before we

ask for more.

GAO’s past 7 years.—In 1992, GAO began its downsizing efforts with the implementation of a hiring freeze. This was soon followed by a 1995, congressionally mandated, 25-percent nominal funding reduction over 2 years. This funding reduction,

however, did not take into account uncontrollable inflation and mandatory pay increases, and separation costs for staff leaving GAO service. As a result, GAO had

to take dramatic actions to achieve the mandated funding reduction in such a short

time period, which ultimately resulted in a much larger reduction in staff than contemplated. It instituted a reduction-in-force; closed regional offices; imposed a 5-year

hiring freeze; eliminated performance rewards; curtailed technology investments;

and reduced travel, training, supplies, and other support costs to achieve the overall

mandated reduction in spending. GAO is now facing a number of critical human
178

capital, information technology, and work process challenges that it needs to address.

GAO is a much smaller organization today than it was in 1992. During the 7-year

downsizing period, GAO’s full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing level was reduced by

39 percent. As illustrated below, GAO had a staffing level of 5,325 FTE’s in fiscal

year 1992. By fiscal year 1998, its staffing level was reduced to 3,245 FTE’s.

During its downsizing, GAO reduced the number of its field offices from 30 in fiscal year 1992 to 16 locations today. This reduction included closing 4 major field

offices, 8 sublocations, and 2 overseas offices, as illustrated in the following graphic.
179

While GAO has recently begun taking steps toward reinvigorating its organization

and workforce following the downsizing period, I believe a number of things need

to be addressed to make GAO as strong as it needs to be to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission and serve the needs of the Congress and the American people. The following represent some of the key human capital, technology, and work

process issues that GAO faces today.

Human capital issues.—Human capital is GAO’s most important asset. As illustrated in the following graphic, over 80 percent of its resources are devoted to its

workforce in the form of compensation, benefits, rewards, and training. As outlined

below, a number of GAO’s human capital programs have been detrimentally affected

by its past downsizing. A top priority of my tenure at GAO, as well as an area of

review for GAO in the rest of government, will be human capital issues. No organization can maximize its economy, efficiency, and effectiveness without assuring the

appropriateness and effectiveness of its human capital (people) strategies. This is

especially true in the case of professional service organizations.

As illustrated in the following graphic, GAO’s hiring freeze lasted 5 years before

it was completely lifted at the beginning of fiscal year 1998. Until 1998, its separations far exceeded its new hires.
180

The 5-year hiring freeze has had several significant effects on GAO’s workforce

composition and its ability to recruit and retain high caliber, skilled staff. First, as

illustrated in the following graphic, GAO’s median age increased from 41 in fiscal

year 1992 to 47 today.

As a consequence, the percentage of GAO staff eligible for retirement is also

steadily increasing. About 33 percent of GAO’s current staff will be eligible for retirement by the end of fiscal year 2004. This represents a four-fold increase from

today and poses a major challenge for the agency. As illustrated in the following

graphic, almost 60 percent of GAO’s current SES and more than one-third of its current evaluator and related staff will reach retirement age by the year 2004. This

also represents an approximate four-fold increase from current eligibility levels.
181

In addition to these workforce-aging issues, GAO’s compensation package is not

on a level comparable to that of the executive branch. To help achieve its mandated

funding reduction, GAO eliminated its performance rewards and recognition programs in fiscal year 1993. As a result, GAO has been on an uneven playing field

with the executive branch in its ability to recruit and retain high caliber and skilled

staff. Last year, GAO lost more than 50 experienced staff to other federal agencies,

20 percent of who were management. GAO also has been losing staff to the private

sector, such as CPA and other professional firms. GAO recently implemented a new

performance awards program in fiscal year 1998. However, this program is only

modestly funded, and we need to quickly return to a level playing field with the executive branch.

Training is another key issue that GAO and its staff have been facing. As illustrated in the following graphic, the amount of resources devoted to external training

for GAO’s staff has declined over the past 7 years. While GAO also conducts internal training courses, due to the diversity of the skills, knowledge, and technology

needed by our workforce, we must supplement this internal training with selected

external technical and specialty training. This is particularly important for individuals who need to maintain professional certifications in their chosen field.
182

World-class professional service organizations similar to GAO’s multi-discipline

workforce invest nearly 6 percent of their budgets in training staff. When staff time

and other overhead costs for training are included, GAO’s total investment in training its staff was less than 4 percent in fiscal year 1998. For GAO to continue providing timely and high quality service to the Congress, it needs to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of its workforce skills and invest greater resources in

training its staff. One specific area in which GAO needs to increase staff training

is the use of the new technology and software application packages that are being

implemented throughout the organization.

Technology issues.—GAO is on target for ensuring that its systems are Year 2000

compliant. As of December 31, 1998, GAO had completed 97 percent of the renovation—conversion, replacement, or retirement—phase of its 28 mission critical systems. GAO expects to complete the renovations and validations of these systems by

the end of March 1999. GAO’s recent upgrade of its desktop and network hardware

and software platforms ensures that these systems are Y2K compliant as well.

As illustrated in the following graphic, from fiscal years 1992 to 1995, GAO made

major technology investments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its mission-related operations. However, beginning in fiscal year 1996, GAO had to significantly reduce these investments to help achieve the 1995 mandated funding reduction.
183

Additional resources are now needed to address some immediate and continuing

critical information technology needs. One short-term priority will be to replace nonY2K compliant laptop computers and software packages that are no longer vendorsupported. In addition, the agency needs to embark on a comprehensive review of

its overall information technology strategy, with an eye toward striking a balance

between wants, needs, and affordability.

Work Processes.—Over the past several years, GAO made substantial changes to

its work processes and significantly improved the way it conducts its work. As a result, the timeliness and average costs of its reviews have improved. However, GAO

must be open to continuous improvement to strike an appropriate balance between

timeliness and quality and other factors in light of constrained resources and reduced flexibility. I believe that a comprehensive reassessment of such processes

should be conducted every 3 to 5 years, with other enhancements being made continuously. Thus, a comprehensive review is planned after GAO’s strategic planning

process is completed.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Let me move on to the specifics of GAO’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for

$388,948,000. I am committed to making GAO as economical, efficient, and effective

in its operations as possible. GAO needs to take a long-term look at what it needs

to maintain its effectiveness in an environment of scarce resources. With your support, I will conduct a comprehensive review of GAO’s needs and resources over the

next year.

In the meantime, for fiscal year 2000, I am not seeking additional staff above our

fiscal year 1999 funded level of 3,275 FTE’s or funding for any major new initiatives. I am requesting funds to permit GAO to maintain its current operations,

while adding a few modest increases to address several critical existing programs

that have not been adequately funded over the past few years.

The funding level increase I am requesting provides for the following:

Uncontrollable Mandatory Costs.—$24,874,000 is needed to cover uncontrollable

mandatory costs. Of this amount, $17,589,000 is needed to cover mandatory pay and

benefits increases resulting primarily from federal cost-of-living and locality pay adjustments, and increased participation in the FERS retirement system. In addition,

$7,285,000 is being requested to offset uncontrollable reductions in GAO’s fiscal year
184

1999 appropriation base. This amount consists of $6,685,000 that was transferred

to GAO in fiscal year 1998 to meet fiscal year 1999 needs, which will not be available in fiscal year 2000, and $600,000 for anticipated declines in reimbursements

for GAO audits of government corporations.

Uncontrollable Costs for Inflation.—$1,081,000 is requested to cover uncontrollable price-level increases in transportation, lodging, printing, supplies, contracts,

and other essential mission support services, based on OMB’s 2-percent inflation

index.

Critical Needs.—To help GAO get back on track following its downsizing,

$6,825,000 is requested for several critical human capital, work process reengineering, travel, and information technology needs. Additional details about each

of these follow.

—Human capital.—$2,500,000 is being requested to permit GAO to administer its

performance awards for both SES and non-SES staff at a level comparable to

that of the executive branch to help ensure our ability to attract and retain top

quality staff with specialized skills. GAO also is requesting $750,000 to increase

training for its staff to maximize their use of new technology and software application packages that are being implemented. In addition, during the upcoming year, we plan to begin conducting a comprehensive review of our human

capital policies, practices, utilization, and needs. It is expected that this study

will identify some important new initiatives, and $500,000 is being requested

to provide contract and other support for the study and to develop the initiatives.

—Work process reengineering.—$500,000 is being requested to reengineer GAO’s

work processes to increase its responsiveness to and interface with the Congress

and enhance the quality, timeliness, efficiency, and usefulness of its products

and services.

—Travel.—$875,000 is being requested to meet increased demands for travel, particularly foreign travel, that is necessary as a result of recent congressionally

mandated reviews and overseas office closures during GAO’s downsizing. These

mandates include reviews of such issues as the International Monetary Fund,

international Y2K readiness, nuclear weapon arsenals, and war zone reviews in

the Balkans and Middle East.

—Information technology.—$1.7 million is being requested to support several critical information technology needs. Of this amount, $1 million is needed to fund

essential fiscal year 2000 needs, including replacing non-Y2K compliant laptop

computers and printers, and upgrading outdated system software that is no

longer vendor-supported. Also, $200,000 is needed to develop and implement an

information technology disaster recovery process. Similar to its human capital

study, GAO also plans to conduct a comprehensive review of its information

technology during the next year. Thus, $500,000 is requested to provide contractor and other needed support to conduct this comprehensive review and

begin developing initiatives that the review will identify.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Former Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher and Acting Comptroller General

James F. Hinchman did an exceptional job in leading and steering GAO through

several difficult years. As I have stated previously, I have inherited one of the best

agencies in the federal government. At the same time, there is always room for improvement, and improvement must be continuous in these challenging times.

GAO needs to lead by example and maximize its capacity in an environment of

limited resources. To accomplish this objective, GAO needs to make several targeted

and strategic investments in human capital (e.g., training, performance measurement and rewards systems) and information technology to help its employees ‘‘work

smarter.’’ The dollars that I am seeking will help GAO begin addressing some of

these critical needs and remain competitive in recruiting and retaining high caliber

and skilled staff. In addition, these funds will help GAO gain a better understanding of its human capital, work processes, and technology needs and identify

the best and most economical and effective course of action to pursue to address

them in the years ahead.

GAO needs the dollars that I am requesting to effectively transition into the 21st

century and to continue providing the valuable service that we have so traditionally

provided the Congress and the American people. The actions taken to achieve the

mandated spending reductions have left little flexibility in our budget to make the

needed enhancements that I believe are critical to maintaining GAO as a strong,

effective, and viable operation into the next century. I respectfully request your support of our fiscal year 2000 budget request.
185

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions the

Members of the Subcommittee may have.

TRAVEL REQUEST

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much.

As I look over at the list of questions that we prepared, I think

you covered virtually all of them in your opening statement. So I

will turn to Senator Feinstein while I look for something else.

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know, Mr. Chairman, when I was mayor

and I did the budget every year, I would always go immediately to

the department’s travel budget because it always was sort of interesting to see. This is the first time since I have been Ranking on

this committee that I see travel at $875,000.

Mr. WALKER. Do you mean as far as the request? Is that what

you are saying?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Why is it so high?

Mr. WALKER. The reason it is so high is, number one, we have

reduced the number of field offices that we have from 40 to 16. We

have closed all of our offices overseas as part of the downsizing. We

used to have an office in Frankfurt to be able to deal with European issues. We used to have an office in Hawaii to deal with Asian

issues. Those have all been closed. So, as a result, we have to travel more just to be able to cover the same types of issues that we

otherwise would have.

Second, the nature of the requests, Senator, that we have been

receiving in recent years have really been more international in

scope, for example what is going on in Bosnia, changes in Europe,

the financial crisis in Asia, World Bank and IMF activities among

other things. What about the mass transit systems in Europe and

whether they might serve as a model for what we might need to

look at here?

So, as a result, to meet the needs of the Congress and, given our

reduced number of offices and locations, we have to travel more.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Just for fun, can I get a breakdown of these

travel plans, please, as well as last year’s?

Mr. WALKER. Absolutely, Senator. We will work with you on how

much detail you are looking for.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Just how it was spent.

Mr. WALKER. Sure, we would be happy to do that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And how you plan on spending this.

Mr. WALKER. Sure.

[The information follows:]

Travel is an essential element of GAO’s emphasis on the quality of its work. Audit

and evaluation work must be sufficiently representative in scope and in the number

and type of locations covered to assure the validity of GAO’s conclusions and recommendations. For these reasons, time must be spent on-site to observe first-hand

where federal dollars are being spent throughout the United States and in foreign

locations.

The additional funds requested for fiscal year 2000 are needed to cover increased

travel demands, particularly overseas assignments, resulting from Congressional requests, such as reviews of the International Monetary Fund, international Year

2000 readiness, the Bosnia conflict, emerging foreign markets, and safeguarding nuclear weapons arsenals. These mandates require a higher level of overseas travel

than what GAO has normally experienced. Also, our travel requirements have in-
186

creased in recent years due to the closure of 14 field and overseas offices since fiscal

year 1992.

In fiscal year 1998, 90 percent of our travel funds were used for mission essential

travel. Travel for executive direction and support, training, and other administrative

activities accounted for the remaining funds. About 5 percent of the trips taken by

audit and evaluation staff were to overseas locations. On average, evaluators spent

almost 18 days in travel status at an average per capita cost of about $3,200.

Since fiscal year 1992 there has been a steady decline in both the time and

amount spent on travel. In fiscal year 1992, travel funds represented about 5 percent of GAO’s appropriation, compared to 3 percent since fiscal year 1998. However,

in 1992 GAO began its downsizing efforts with the implementation of a hiring

freeze. The hiring freeze was soon followed by a 1995, congressionally mandated, 25-

percent nominal funding reduction over 2 years. This funding reduction necessitated

a reduction-in-force, closure of regional and overseas offices, and reductions in available travel funds. Travel funds used in fiscal 1998 are less than half the amount

spent in fiscal year 1992.

GAO’s downsizing, combined with annual increases in airline fares and per diem

rates, necessitated changes in our business practices. Therefore, as early as fiscal

year 1992 GAO began implementing a number of practices to reduce travel costs

and maximize funds available for mission essential travel. Technology enhancements through the GAO-wide network using a data collection and analysis application, electronic mail, and videoconferencing have helped GAO improve data and

communications exchanges, and reduce travel requirements between headquarters

and field locations.

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

I do have one question that was not covered.

The income from receipts for audit work performed by GAO for

other agencies has been consistently declining every year. I assume

this is because the agencies use their IG’s.

Mr. WALKER. Or external auditors.

Senator BENNETT. Or external auditors, contracted with private

sector firms.

Now you are projecting an additional decrease of $600,000 in receipts and you are asking Congress to make that up.

There is a little bit of a disconnect there. If, in fact, you are not

doing the work and that is why you are not getting the receipts,

why should we pay for it?

Mr. WALKER. Senator, I appreciate your comment. I think the

way that I would characterize it is this. We have the people. We

have to pay the people. We already have backlogs with regard to

our work. We are already down to only 4 percent in discretionary

jobs. Therefore, we have more than enough work for these people

to do. And yet, we are going to lose the revenues that otherwise

we were getting.

So, we would like to keep them gainfully employed, meeting the

needs of the Congress. But we have to be able to pay them to do

that.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BENNETT. OK.

I have nothing further. Thank you very much.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator

Feinstein.
187

Senator BENNETT. We welcome you to the committee for your

first appearance and look forward to seeing you regularly.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the hearing:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Question. During the Committee’s last quarterly briefing, GAO had 2 additional

mission-critical systems that need to be renovated, 9 systems which remain to be

validated, and test and contingency plans which need to be finalized.

Will GAO meet the March 31 executive branch deadline and have the remaining

2 systems renovated?

Have test and contingency plans been finalized?

Answer. All mission-critical systems requiring remediation were renovated, validated, and implemented by March 31, 1999. GAO has obtained either vendor certification of Year 2000 compliance or developed test plans for all mission-critical systems. In addition, as of March 31, all interfaces between mission-critical systems

were tested.

GAO also has developed plans to perform ‘‘end-to-end’’ testing of all systems that

it directly controls and will require that ‘‘end-to-end’’ testing be performed by the

computer centers that operate its administrative systems. GAO has already tested

the movement of data among its mission-critical administrative systems. In addition, we have participated with NFC in testing the Payroll/Personnel system, and

are working with NFC to test the interface from the Payroll/Personnel system into

the Financial Management System.

GAO is well along in the process of developing both business continuity and contingency plans. We have analyzed our core business processes, identified their supporting systems, and are now developing the specific procedures that would allow

staff to operate outside of the headquarters building. In addition, we are developing

comprehensive ‘‘Zero Day’’ plans to focus on the critical 5-day period of the century

rollover—December 30, 1999 to January 3, 2000—to ensure that January 3 is an

uneventful, business-as-usual day. The contingency plans for most systems will be

completed by the summer. Our contingency plans involve changes in our operating

procedures, are largely manual, and are not dependent on new technology.

Question. The income from receipts for audit work performed by GAO for other

agencies has been consistently declining every year as more agencies use their Office of Inspector General (OIG) or contract with private sector firms for their audits.

This year GAO projects an additional reduction of $600,000 in receipts and asks for

Congress to make up that difference in appropriated funds.

Have you looked into why agencies are no longer using GAO for their audit work?

Shouldn’t there be a decrease in the FTE level if the demand for these services

is reduced?

Answer. The reduction in corporate audit receipts from $2 million in fiscal year 1999 to $1.4 million in fiscal year 2000 is attributable to the audit of FDIC’s financial statements. GAO has been working with the FDIC OIG to further increase OIG

involvement in the audits of FDIC’s financial statements. This involvement began

with the 1996 audits as a long-term training effort to progressively increase the

level of OIG responsibility in the financial audits so that the OIG would be qualified

and experienced to take over the audits if the opportunity occurs. GAO has statutory responsibility to perform the annual financial audits under the provisions of

Section 17(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1827(d)).

Although GAO’s FTE’s for performing the reimbursable audit at FDIC have declined, other areas within GAO are experiencing increasing demands for staff resources. As noted in our response to question 3, resource demands for congressional

mandates and requests continue to increase.

Question. In your testimony you indicate that the percentage of GAO’s audit work

conducted at the direction of Congress has increased from 82 percent in 1992 to 96

percent in 1998.

Do you have any rationale for that increase?

What is the significance of those figures?

Answer. In both fiscal years 1992 and 1998, requests from committees and individual members were about 74 percent of audit resources used. Resources spent on

congressional mandates, however, increased from 8 percent in fiscal year 1992 to 22

percent in fiscal year 1998. This increase, coupled with the steady volume of congressional requests, limits GAO’s flexibility to conduct self-initiated reviews.
188

Question. GAO has been making large investments in technology. Last year GAO

estimated that by the end of fiscal year 1998, 80 percent of staff IT stations would

be upgraded.

How much have you spent on IT since fiscal year 1996?

What percentage of staff remain to be upgraded?

Answer. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, GAO significantly curtailed IT operating costs and deferred most technology investments. Because of the constrained

budget environment during this period, GAO’s principal focus in information resources and technology had been to upgrade existing systems to ensure they remain

current and continue to operate in the year 2000. In fiscal years 1996 through 1998,

GAO spent $10.4 million on IT investments, including upgrades to network components such as servers, workstations, and other peripheral equipment, Windows95

operating system, MSOffice Suites application software, and the telecommunications

network. Some of these investments, such as network equipment and workstations,

were obtained under lease-to-purchase agreements. These improvements have provided GAO with a fully integrated set of applications that has reduced document

creation time, streamlined document production, and ensured Year 2000 compliance.

As of January 1999, all staff workstations have been upgraded.

Question. You have indicated an increase in the volume of work requested by Congress.

How many requests did you receive in fiscal year 1998 from Committee Chairmen

or Ranking Members?

How many requests did you receive from Members of Congress?

Were there any requests that you were not able to satisfy? How many?

Answer. In fiscal year 1998, GAO received 1,531 requests from the Congress for

audit work. The sources of these requests were as follows: 1,081 requests (71 percent) were initiated by Committee Chairmen or Ranking Members; 334 requests (22

percent) were initiated by Members; 101 requests (7 percent) were new mandates

contained in public laws or committee reports; as well as 15 requests (less than 1

percent) from a member of the congressional leadership, officer of Congress, or congressional task force.

Decisions to undertake individual assignments are influenced heavily by the

source of the request. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, as codified in 31

U.S.C. 717, requires the Comptroller General to respond to legislative mandates and

committee requests. As a matter of policy, we interpret committee requests to include requests from both committee Chairs or Ranking Minority Members. Requests

from individual Members are undertaken to the extent possible.

While scope and timing adjustments are frequently negotiated with requesters,

GAO is generally able to satisfy the needs of most congressional requests. Issue area

managers with a significant backlog of requests will often work with congressional

staff to help prioritize the requests, respond to the earliest doable requests, might

postpone a specialized request to await the availability of staff with the requisite

expertise, or might postpone a small non-urgent request for a more important timecritical request. In addition, some of the requests have a future due date or require

another event before GAO can begin work. Currently, there are about 400 requests

for GAO assistance where we have not initiated work.

GAO is taking a number of actions to enhance its operations and services to and

interface with its client—the Congress. GAO must make sure it has clearly defined,

transparent, and consistent guidelines governing our relations with the Congress,

no matter which party is the majority and which is the minority. By the end of this

year, we plan to have a program in place for gauging, through direct contact with

congressional leaders and members, the level of satisfaction with GAO’s products

and services. The Comptroller General will personally meet at least annually with

top congressional leaders, and other top GAO executives will meet with key committee leadership.
(189)

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

WILLIAM GUY, BUDGET DIRECTOR

WELCOMING REMARKS

Senator BENNETT. Our next witness is Michael DiMario, the Public Printer.

Good morning, sir.

Mr. DIMARIO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. The Government Printing Office requests a

total of $128.5 million for Congressional printing and binding, the

Superintendent of Documents, and the Revolving Fund.

It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. DiMario, that I will be

listening very carefully to your comments about GPO’s preparedness for the Y2K. GAO, from whom we have just heard, has expressed concern about your ability to be ready. You know my concern here.

So I look forward to going into that in some detail.

Senator Feinstein, do you have any comment?

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Mr. DiMario, we welcome you.

Please proceed.

PUBLIC PRINTER’S STATEMENT

Mr. DIMARIO. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, I am pleased to

be here this morning to present GPO’s appropriations request for

fiscal year 2000.

With me on my left is Bob Mansker, the Deputy Public Printer.

On my right is Francis Buckley, the Superintendent of Documents.

Also with us is Bill Guy, GPO’s Budget Officer, who is here behind

me.

In the interest of time, I will summarize my prepared statement

which has been submitted for the record.

Senator BENNETT. It will appear in the record.

Mr. DIMARIO. Thank you. For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a total of $128.5 million. The request includes $82.2 million for the Congressional Printing

and Binding appropriation and $31.2 million for the Superintendent of Documents programs.

It also includes $15 million for GPO’s Revolving Fund for extraordinary expenses associated with air conditioning replacement,

elevator renovation, and ensuring Y2K compliance.
190

Most of the new funds we are requesting for Congressional printing and binding, or $5.8 million, are to cover anticipated workload

increases.

After a period of reduced workload in the 105th Congress, we anticipate a return to workload levels more consistent with historical

trends during the 106th Congress. A majority of the increase for

the Superintendent of Documents, or $1.1 million, is for the Federal Depository Library Program planned electronic collection.

Managing and expanding this collection is crucial to the objective

of transitioning the Depository Library Program to a more electronic basis.

The request of $15 million for the Revolving Fund includes $8.1

million for extraordinary expenses required to ensure Y2K compliance, $6 million for our air conditioning system, which is in critical

need of replacement, and $900,000 for necessary elevator renovation.

Without a direct appropriation, financing these unusual capital

expenses through the Revolving Fund will require us to reimburse

the fund through rate adjustments.

Finally, we are requesting an increase in the statutory ceiling on

employment of full time equivalents, or FTEs, to 3,550. We have

reduced employment levels by 33 percent over the past decade and

by more than 25 percent since 1993.

Our employment levels are now dangerously low. Overtime utilization has increased by 11 percent in the past year. Our ability to

continue providing mission critical support to Congress is being

jeopardized by continued attrition and reductions in our FTE ceiling.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks and I would

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 to

present the appropriations request of the Government Printing Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2000.

GPO’S MISSION: KEEPING AMERICA INFORMED

A commitment to public access to Government information is deeply rooted in our

system of Government. GPO is one of the most visible demonstrations of that commitment. For more than a century, our mission under the public printing and documents statutes of Title 44, U.S. Code, has been to fulfill the needs of the Federal

Government for information products and to distribute those products to the public.

Formerly, GPO’s mission was accomplished through the production and procurement of traditional printing technologies. However, a generation ago we began migrating our processes to electronic technologies, and in 1993 Congress amended Title

44 with the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act (Public Law 103–

40), which requires us to disseminate Government information products online. This

Act is the basis of GPO Access, our Internet information service.

Today, GPO is dedicated to producing, procuring, and disseminating Government

information products in a wide range of formats—print, CD–ROM, and online. In

GPO the Government has a unique asset that combines a comprehensive range of

conventional production and electronic processing, procurement facilitation, and

multi-format dissemination capabilities to support the information life cycle needs

of Congress, Federal agencies, and the public:
191

—We provide print and electronic information products and services to Congress

and Federal agencies through in-plant processes and the purchase of information products from the private sector. For Congress, we maintain a capability

to fully support the information product needs of the legislative process, working in close cooperation with leadership offices, committees, Members, and staffs

in each Chamber.

—We disseminate Government information to the public in print and electronic

formats through a low-priced sales program and a reimbursable program, and

to Federal depository libraries nationwide where the information may be used

by the public free of charge. We provide a number of ancillary dissemination

services, including cataloging and indexing Government information products,

distribution of Federal information under international exchange agreements,

and distribution of Federal documents to recipients designated by law.

—We disseminate a massive volume of information online via the Internet with

GPO Access. Between 10 million and 15 million documents are retrieved by the

public every month using this system. We strongly support the increased dissemination of Government information in electronic formats, and GPO Access

today is one of the leading Federal sites on the Internet. Our home page, at

www.access.gpo.gov, provides free public access to more than 70 Federal databases from all three branches of the Government, a growing number of agency

Government Information Locator Service (GILS) sites, and associated locator

and Pathway aids. The titles currently available on GPO Access include the recent report of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, headed by Chairman Bennett, Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000

Problem.

Value of GPO Services.—GPO’s value to Congress, Federal agencies, and the public is well established. Our programs reduce the need for duplicative production and

procurement facilities throughout the Government. As multiple studies by the General Accounting Office, the Office of Technology Assessment, GPO’s Inspector General, and others have shown, GPO achieves significant taxpayer savings through a

centralized production and procurement system. Our dissemination programs represent the Government’s most comprehensive and effective means for providing public access to Government information, which is increasingly valuable to all Americans in the Information Age.

We provide all of our services in a non-partisan, service-oriented environment that

emphasizes the primacy of the customer’s requirements for timeliness, quality, security, and economy. We are dedicated to achieving the greatest access and equity in

information dissemination through printed publications, CD–ROM, and online information technologies. Our electronic and traditional technologies simultaneously enable us to facilitate the re-engineering of information products to satisfy the Government’s changing information requirements, and to preserve and protect public access to Government information for all of our citizens.

Most importantly, GPO’s skilled and dedicated employees are committed to serving Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. They demonstrated this once again

during the production of the various publications associated with the report of independent counsel Kenneth Starr. These voluminous, high-profile publications were

required by Congress under the very demanding circumstances of short turnaround

time and tight security constraints. In each case, our employees were able to

produce the documents within the required deadlines and provide public access in

both print and electronic forms, all in record-breaking time, earning the praise of

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde. Under the close direction of the Appropriations Committees, we also produced the Omnibus Appropriations bill at the end

of the 105th Congress under tight deadlines. GPO’s performance demonstrated once

again that our employees have the skills and the ability to provide for Congress’s

information needs under virtually any circumstance. They are indeed our greatest

and most valuable asset.

More than a century ago, Congress in its wisdom designed a system in GPO for

keeping America informed. That system continues to serve a vital purpose today.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a total of $128,459,000. The request includes $82,214,000 for the annual Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and $31,245,000 for the annual Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. Our request also includes $15,000,000 for GPO’s revolving fund, to remain available until expended, for extraordinary expenses associated

with the replacement of our air-conditioning systems, elevator renovation, and to ensure Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance in our computer systems. As our budget submis-
192

sion shows on pages I–2 and I–3, GPO’s appropriations have remained relatively

stable over the past decade while declining substantially in real purchasing power.

The Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation is critical to the maintenance and operation of our in-plant capacity, which is structured to serve Congress’s

information product needs. This appropriation covers the costs of congressional

printing such as the Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearings, documents, and

other products. Each year, a substantial volume of this work is requisitioned. In fiscal year 1998, more than 1.3 billion copy pages of congressional products were produced at an average cost of about 5 cents per page, inclusive of all prepress work,

printing, binding, and delivery. This appropriation also covers database preparation

work on congressional publications disseminated online via GPO Access.

The majority of the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses Appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). While some of the

funding for this program is for salaries and benefits, most is for printing and distributing publications (including publications in CD–ROM and online formats) to depository libraries. This appropriation also covers other statutory distribution responsibilities, such as cataloging and indexing and international exchange distribution

of U.S. Government publications, and provides the majority of funding for the operation of GPO Access. GPO’s other major distribution functions, the sales program

and agency distribution services, are funded entirely by revenues earned and receive

no appropriated funds.

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING APPROPRIATION

The items covered by our request of $82,214,000 for the Congressional Printing

and Binding Appropriations are as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Estimated

Category Requirement

Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index, and the bound

Record) ................................................................................................................ 22.1

Committee hearings ............................................................................................... 18.0

Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads, envelopes, blank

paper, and other products) ................................................................................ 13.9

Bills, resolutions, amendments ............................................................................. 9.8

Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional Directory, the U.S.

Code, and serial sets) ......................................................................................... 4.9

Committee Reports ................................................................................................ 3.8

Business and Committee Calendars ..................................................................... 2.5

Documents .............................................................................................................. 2.4

Details to Congress ................................................................................................ 2.0

Committee Prints ................................................................................................... 1.7

Document Envelopes and Franks ......................................................................... 1.1

Total ............................................................................................................. 82.2

Part of the increase in our appropriations request over the current year is due

to changes in product prices. Price increases are anticipated to increase our funding

requirements by $1,899,000 over the current year base, due to the increased costs

of employee compensation and benefits (based on existing wage contracts), utilities,

maintenance, materials, and supplies. We are continuing to work to minimize the

impact of these costs.

The majority of the increase in our request, however, is due to projected workload,

or volume, increases. An increase of $5,850,000 over the current year base is required due to anticipated workload increases, based on historical trend data. After

a period of reduced workload in the 105th Congress, we anticipate a return to workload levels more consistent with historical trends during the 106th Congress. Most

of this increase ($4,366,000) is projected for the Congressional Record program, including the daily Record, the bound Record, and the Record index. Historical data

indicates an increase in Record pages in a second session year. Other increases are

projected for bills, resolutions, and amendments; committee reports, miscellaneous

printing and binding, business and committee calendars, documents, and committee

prints. Partially offsetting workload reductions are projected for miscellaneous publications (since the Congressional Directory is printed in a first session year), details

to Congress, and hearings. (We have begun work on the Congressional Directory for

the 106th Congress.) While these estimates are based on historical factors and represent our best estimates as to the projected workload for the first session of the

106th Congress, actual workload may vary.
193

Legislative Information Systems.—We continue to participate with both the House

and the Senate in the development of new legislative information systems that will

expand the capability to create and utilize electronic information products in Congress and potentially reduce GPO’s printing costs. One objective of these systems

is the adoption of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) to permit the

submission of machine-readable keystrokes requiring less processing by GPO prior

to final production. We are supporting initiatives in both Chambers to facilitate the

sharing of information.

Computer-to-Plate Technology.—We are acquiring state-of-the-art computer-toplate (CTP) technology that will reduce costs, improve press-ready plate quality, and

expedite the processing of prepress work on many congressional products, including

the Congressional Record. The new systems are already in limited operation. CTP

technology makes it possible to send electronic text and image files directly to automated platemaking devices, eliminating the need for film negatives and additional

labor-intensive manual processes. We are constantly monitoring industry for other

technological improvements that can be used in GPO’s operations.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES APPROPRIATION

The programs covered by our request of $31,245,000 for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents are as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Estimated

Program Requirements

Federal Depository Library Program ................................................................... 26.8

Cataloging and Indexing Program ........................................................................ 3.3

By-Law Distribution Program .............................................................................. .6

International Exchange Program ......................................................................... .5

Total ............................................................................................................. 31.2

Mandatory pay increases and price level changes represent $842,000 of the requested increase of $1,981,000. Mandatory pay increases account for $358,000 of

this amount. The majority of the increase, $484,000, reflects price level changes calculated at the assumed rate of inflation for the year, or 2.3 percent.

FDLP Electronic Collection.—A total of $1,077,000 over the current year base is

requested for workload changes, primarily for expenditures associated with managing the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) electronic collection. The collection consists of electronic sources that are within the scope of the FDLP and with

which GPO has various levels of involvement: (1) core congressional and regulatory

products that reside permanently on GPO servers; (2) other remotely accessible

products managed by either GPO or by other institutions with which GPO has established formal partnership agreements; (3) remotely accessible electronic Government information products that GPO identifies, describes, and links to, but which

remain under the control of the originating agencies; and (4) tangible electronic Government information products distributed to Federal depository libraries. The collection also has defined responsibilities for life cycle management of electronic Government information products to ensure permanent availability, as well as responsibilities for assisting users in locating information resources.

The collection already consists of over 140,000 electronic titles, including over

85,000 titles on GPO Access itself and almost 48,000 additional titles at agency sites

that we link to through our electronic locator services. We are beginning to work

with agencies, depository libraries, and other partners to ensure permanent access

to these products so they can continue to be used by the public well into the future.

Projected expenditures associated with this plan include increased server space and

connection capacity for agency originated files that GPO archives; data conversion

and migratory costs to prevent technological obsolescence; software to improve

searching capabilities; and software to manage data archiving for electronic collection titles. We also anticipate personnel costs associated with a collection manager

and reimbursement to Production areas for collection support.

An additional $62,000 increase is required to fund depreciation arising from asset

acquisitions, including the establishment of a training center for online access to

Government information, new software for the Monthly Catalog of Government Publications, upgrades to our automated depository distribution system, and other improvements.

We are also requesting an increase in the statutory limitation on travel, from

$150,000 to $175,000, due primarily to the increasing cost of travel. These funds

cover travel by depository library inspectors to libraries around the Nation, travel
194

by GPO staff to attend various library association conferences and meetings, travel

of members of the Depository Library Council to Council meetings to serve in an

advisory capacity to the Public Printer, and travel by GPO staff nationwide to provide training in the use of GPO Access.

FDLP Transition.—The transition to a more electronic FDLP is continuing, as

projected in 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. The development of the FDLP electronic collection concept is an important element of that transition. Approximately 34 percent of all titles disseminated to depository libraries in

fiscal year 1998 were in electronic format.

REVOLVING FUND

Fiscal Year 1998 Performance.—After a period of net losses in the early 1990’s,

GPO completed a second consecutive year of positive bottom line results in fiscal

year 1998, generating net income of about $1,000,000 on total revenues of approximately $723,000,000. However, losses were sustained in our procurement and sales

areas, and we are reviewing options to restore each of these programs to a sound

financial basis. During the year, an audit of GPO’s fiscal year 1997 financial reports

and systems was conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick, Inc., under contract with the

General Accounting Office. The audit resulted in a clean opinion, as have previous

GPO financial audits. KPMG has recently completed an audit of GPO’s finances for

fiscal year 1998. This audit also resulted in a clean opinion on the financial statements.

Infrastructure Costs.—Our appropriations request includes a request for

$15,000,000 for the revolving fund, to be available until expended, to cover the cost

of necessary improvements to GPO’s infrastructure and systems. The request includes $8,100,000 for reimbursement of extraordinary expenses required to ensure

Y2K compliance (including equipment repairs, replacement, testing, and contingency

planning); $6,000,000 for our air conditioning system which is in critical need of replacement; and $900,000 for necessary elevator renovation. Without a direct appropriation, financing these extraordinary capital expenses through the revolving fund

will require us to reimburse the fund through rate adjustments. As these costs are

not related to the direct provision of printing and information product services, their

impact on our rate structure will be detrimental to our ability to carry out our mission to provide cost-effective and economical products and services. The installation

of our air conditioning system in 1974 was funded by a direct appropriation to the

revolving fund, and we request that these extraordinary costs be funded similarly.

FTE Level.—We are requesting an increase in the statutory ceiling on employment of full-time equivalents (FTE’s) to 3,550, the level established for fiscal year

1998. GPO is now at its lowest employment point in this century. We have reduced

employment levels by 33 percent over the past decade, and by more than 25 percent

since 1993. Our employment levels are now dangerously low. Overtime utilization

has increased by 11 percent in the past year. While we were able to perform the

demands placed on us for production of the Starr report and Omnibus Appropriations bill materials, our ability to continue providing this level of service is being

jeopardized by continued attrition and reductions in our FTE ceiling.

Due to the age of our workforce, we need to replace essential skills. For example,

GPO’s prepress area is an area with potentially critical staff shortages. The prepress

area is essential to Congress—it is where the Congressional Record, bills, reports,

hearings, and all other documents essential to the legislative process are assembled

for timely delivery both in print and electronic formats. Critical staffing shortages

in these areas threaten GPO’s ability to perform its mission. In addition, our expanding electronic mission requires an infusion of new technical skills that are not

readily available in-house.

Finally, we need additional staffing to fulfill the recommendations of the BoozAllen & Hamilton, Inc., management audit of GPO conducted last year at the request of Congress. The auditors said ‘‘[GPO’s] Production [Department] must take

aggressive action to adequately recruit, train, and retain staff in critical skill areas;’’

‘‘GPO’s information systems security program has been undermined by staff reductions and budget cuts;’’ GPO’s Position Management Branch ‘‘lacks effective resources;’’ and that GPO’s aging workforce ‘‘leaves the agency at risk of instability.’’

It is becoming increasingly evident that GPO must place more emphasis on maintaining a highly skilled workforce of sufficient size to fulfill the demands placed

upon it and to guard against sacrificing the future of the agency as we seek cost

savings today. A restoration of our FTE ceiling to 3,550 will provide us with the

flexibility we need to make important additions to our workforce.
195

MISCELLANEOUS LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

We are proposing to change section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) by striking out ‘‘$25,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$100,000’’. This would increase

GPO’s small purchase threshold consistent with the simplified acquisition threshold

of $100,000 in operation for other Federal agencies. The change would have no material impact on our Printing Procurement Program, where we will continue to advertise procurement opportunities for jobs of all dollar values. However, it would

help streamline the acquisition process we use to acquire materials and supplies for

our use, including paper and equipment.

As a technical correction, we are also proposing that the last sentence of section

5595(b) of Title 5 U.S.C., as added by section 309(a)(2) the Fiscal Year Legislative

Branch Appropriations Act, should be amended by striking ‘‘(a)(1)(G)’’ and inserting

‘‘(a)(1)(C)’’.

RETIREMENT INCENTIVE AUTHORITY

The Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1999, provides authority for a ‘‘buyout’’

retirement incentive program for GPO. The Act requires GPO to submit a plan to

the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), or any applicable successor committees, by

January 15, 1999. We sent a letter to the Chairman of the JCP by that date, stating

that GPO will not offer a retirement incentive at this time based on the services

required of us and our already reduced workforce. However, the letter also stated

that, should this situation change and a retirement incentive is required within the

3-year period authorized by the legislation—particularly to avoid or minimize the

need for involuntary separations—we will develop the requisite plan for the approval of the JCP or any applicable successor committee.

STATUS OF Y2K PREPAREDNESS

We have been reporting to the General Accounting Office (GAO), operating under

the direction of Chairman Bennett, on the preparation of our computer systems for

compliance with Y2K requirements. The software used in processing the Congressional Record was repaired, tested, and verified as Y2K compliant in February 1998.

The hardware utilized for Record processing was tested and found to be Y2K compliant. A live system test of the transmission of Record data from the Office of the

Secretary of the Senate was successfully conducted for Y2K-specific conditions.

At this date, all 40 of our active mission-critical systems have been assessed. All

40 have been renovated. Thirty-five of the 40 systems have been validated and implemented. These 35 systems include 100 percent of the mission-critical systems

used in producing congressional information products and services. Validation and

implementation have yet to be completed on our new integrated processing system

(sales of publications program), new general ledger package (financial), PROBE system (for reporting job costs), mainframe conversion (administrative and procurement

systems), and automated depository distribution system (depository library program). A major concern remains the ongoing drain through attrition of information

technology (IT) professionals from GPO who are assisting in the Y2K preparedness

effort. In order to assure Y2K compliance, we are looking to acquire contracting

services for independent validation and verification to supplement the stretched resources of our in-house IT areas.

STATUS REPORT ON MANAGEMENT AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

The conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations

Bill (H. Rpt. 105–734, p. 42) required GPO to submit an annual report, concurrent

with the submission of the annual budget request, on the status of implementation

actions on recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report, ‘‘Management Audit of the Government Printing Office’’ (May 21, 1998). This report contained 95 recommendations for action affecting 7 GPO areas: Overall (3); Marketing,

Sales, and Distribution (27); Procured Printing Services (8); In-Plant Production

(13); Human Resources (24); Financial Management (12); and Information Technology (8). Implementation action in the various affected GPO areas has been classified according to ‘‘action planned,’’ ‘‘action ongoing,’’ ‘‘action completed,’’ ‘‘action deferred,’’ ‘‘action taken as needed,’’ or ‘‘no action currently planned.’’

Of the 95 recommendations, action is being taken in a total of 71 cases: action

is either planned (8 cases), ongoing (60 cases), or completed (3 cases). This means

that GPO either plans to act, is currently acting, or has acted affirmatively on approximately 75 percent of the recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., final report. These include recommendations on planning, program modernization, ensuring financial stability, promoting intra-agency communications, and
196

improving information technology capabilities as well as ensuring preparedness for

Y2K. Many of the recommendations for which action is ‘‘ongoing’’ are essentially

open-ended and would not be expected to reach a formal ‘‘completion’’ stage.

On the remaining recommendations, action has been deferred in 3 cases; in 15

cases action will be taken as necessary; and in 7 cases no action is currently

planned (on one recommendation under Sales, Marketing, and Distribution there

have been two actions). The recommendations for which no action is currently

planned include those to which we objected in our formal comments [i.e., changing

the statutory mission of GPO’s sales program (the current program is consistent

with statutory direction and longstanding Government information dissemination

policy); adding an additional shipping charge to our publications prices (these costs

are already included in our publications prices); implementing a just-in-time inventory system (this would reduce competition and increase costs in ordering necessary

supplies); conducting a study on outsourcing the Congressional Record (language in

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 directs a joint

House/Senate study on the cost-effectiveness of producing all congressional documents); implementing a pay-for-performance compensation plan (contraindicated by

Office of Personnel Management studies); creating a Director of Finance position

(the current structure is sufficient to GPO’s needs and the creation of a new management position goes against GPO efforts to reduce managerial levels); and implementing activity-based costing (GPO’s current financial operations, as evidenced by

recent audits, are sound, although this could be explored in the future)].

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared

statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Y2K COMPLIANT SYSTEMS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. Let’s talk about Y2K.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. In GAO’s briefing on the status of Y2K efforts,

they tell us that documentation has only been provided for 2 of 40

mission critical systems, that 38 remain to be implemented. They

also state that test and contingency plans need to be developed.

Now your testimony, as I understand it, says that only 5 systems

remain to be validated and implemented.

This is a fairly big gap between their view and what you are telling us.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. Can we talk about that?

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

The information that I have received from our people—and we

have with us Mr. Vince Arendes, whom I have named as the Y2K

Program Manager in GPO, and Bob Mansker, who is our Deputy

Public Printer. I have assigned Bob the specific duty of dealing

with the Y2K compliance. I did that on the first day that he came

to work for us. I indicated at previous hearings that he was assigned that duty.

The data that we have been given by our people, which is beyond

the last reporting period to GAO, is that of the 74 systems that we

have, 40 potentially are impacted by Y2K and are mission critical

systems. Of those 40, all have been renovated and there are 5 that

haven’t been validated and implemented.

Those are the 5 that we are talking about that have not been

validated and implemented. Within the 40, we have also identified

18 mission critical products and services. Those have all been validated and are implemented. These include those programs in support of the Congress.

Now I can bring Mr. Arendes to the table because he has more

detail on it. But if GAO is giving you that report, it is in direct conflict with what I have been told.
197

Senator BENNETT. I remember when we discussed this with you

in previous hearings. You were talking about new equipment that

would come in and that would be the solution in many parts. You

would not try to remediate your present equipment, you would simply replace it with new equipment.

Mr. DIMARIO. That is true in certain instances. The mainframe

is an example. We have acquired a new mainframe. It is being installed and operational, that mainframe system.

Senator BENNETT. You say it is being installed and operational?

It is one or the other.

Mr. MANSKER. It has been installed.

Senator BENNETT. It has been installed and it is operational

now?

Mr. MANSKER. They are now completing the loading of all the information. It should be within a month, I think, before it is fully

operational.

Senator BENNETT. What kind of software is on it? Is the software

subject to a Y2K problem? Is it new software, written just for it?

Mr. MANSKER. It will be fully Y2K compliant.

Senator BENNETT. Do you have contingency plans in case it is

not?

Mr. DIMARIO. Most of the operating software is proprietary for

which we have the developer’s Y2K certification. Part of the contingency is the continuation of the current network operating system

which is run on ‘‘Banyon Vines’’ software, and there is a provision

to make that ‘‘Banyon Vines’’ software Y2K compliant for the shortterm as a backup. But it is not something that we can rely on in

the long run.

We have included that, in fact, as part of our request for monies

for Y2K compliance a small amount of money for that ‘‘Banyon

Vines’’ provision.

Y2K COMPLIANCE COSTS

Senator BENNETT. You have $8.1 million in here for Y2K costs.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. Compared to what? How much have you spent

up until now on this? What percentage of your Y2K budget to get

this thing fixed does $8 million represent?

Mr. DIMARIO. We project approximately $25.6 million to be spent

on Y2K.

Senator BENNETT. So the $8 million would take you to $33 million?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, sir. We are asking for $8.1 million to allow us

to reimburse part of the $25.6 million for Y2K expenditures that

we’re making, because we are pulling the money out of the Revolving Fund now.

It is the same issue as the elevators, which we have not renovated, and the air conditioning. That money is in a temporary

fund. The Revolving Fund is intended to be a temporary funding

mechanism created by law, 44 U.S.C. 309. That provision has certain specific language. So money is obtained through charges,

charges against the benefiting appropriations, and then it is placed

in the Revolving Fund.
198

Certain monies have been expended for Y2K that are out of pocket. They are not sunk costs, like labor costs for GPO’s own employees.

When I say $25.6 million, I am including all of our costs.

Senator BENNETT. What I am trying to get at is this. Let’s say your Y2K total bill is $25 million.

Mr. DIMARIO. $25.6 million. That’s what we project to invest in

it.

Senator BENNETT. What portion of that $25 million have you already spent and what portion remains unspent?

Mr. DIMARIO. We have spent $19.1 million up through fiscal year

1998. That is my understanding.

Senator BENNETT. How about fiscal year 1999? This is an appropriation for fiscal year 2000, of course.

Mr. DIMARIO. Right. We are including $8.1 million for 2000. In

fiscal year 1999, I don’t know the specific amount that we have.

Bill Guy might have that.

Mr. GUY. It’s about $6 million this year.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Let me understand these numbers.

You spent $19.9—let’s round it up to $20 million—through fiscal

year 1998.

Mr. DIMARIO. That’s right.

Senator BENNETT. You’re going to spend another $6 million in

fiscal year 1999.

Mr. DIMARIO. Right.

Senator BENNETT. And you did not budget for any in fiscal year

2000?

Mr. DIMARIO. For fiscal year 2000, we are asking for $8.1 million.

Senator BENNETT. Yes, I understand that. My question is this: is that reimbursing some of this $26 million?

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, it is. It is reimbursing money that was spent.

Senator BENNETT. How much of it is reimbursing and how much

of it is additional spending?

Mr. DIMARIO. I believe it is all reimbursement.

Mr. GUY. It is almost all reimbursement.

Mr. MANSKER. I think it is only about $400,000 for fiscal year

2000.

Mr. DIMARIO. And it is not reimbursement for our labor, and

other sunk costs. Our labor costs and all other sunk costs we are

taking out of the Revolving Fund. These are employees who were

on hand. That represents most of the total cost, leaving $8.1 million in out of pocket cost for which we are asking reimbursement.

That is for the hardware and software that we have had to purchase specifically——

Senator BENNETT. Wait. Let me understand those numbers.

You tell me it’s $19 million in labor?

Mr. DIMARIO. Principally labor costs and other sunk costs, about

$17.5 million.

Senator BENNETT. And we have $26 million that we have identified here. Is that $26 million all for hardware, so that your total

costs for Y2K would be adding the labor to the hardware?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, sir.

Senator BENNETT. Or is there some mixing here?
199

Mr. DIMARIO. I think we are asking for the difference between

$17.5 million in sunk costs and the $25.6 million that we have in

our Y2K program. That is our total Y2K effort.

The $19.6 million is money we have expended through fiscal year

1998.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, approximately $25.6 million is the totality of our cost for Y2K. We estimate that about $6 million of that

is in-house labor costs; $19 million of it would be the rest of it.

Mr. DIMARIO. That’s correct. I am misstating it.

Mr. MANSKER. Now, about $8 million of what we are asking for

comes from that $19 million, for expenses that we would not otherwise have expended had it not been for the Y2K problem.

We would not have had to change a lot of the computers and

were not planning to do all of that without the Y2K problem coming along.

So what we are asking for in this budget, in the appropriations

process, the $8 million, is not only reimbursement for what we

have spent in that regard that we would not be planning to spend

without Y2K coming along, but also for what we have to do in that

regard this year as well as completing the thing.

So $8 million is what—of the $25 million total—is what we

would not be planning to spend had Y2K not come along.

Senator BENNETT. OK. I understand that.

I won’t beat this horse any further.

Mr. DIMARIO. I apologize. I was misreading my note with respect

to the amount for sunk labor costs.

Senator BENNETT. That is no problem.

I would have a much higher comfort level if GAO’s assessment

of where you are and your assessment of where you are were closer. So can I ask you to sit down with GAO and show them the documentation?

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, we have been doing that on a regular

basis. I, as Deputy Director of the Agency, have sat in on these

meetings.

I have come away very comfortable with what our conversations

with GAO have been. These figures represent what I have gotten

from those meetings.

Now I would love to have GAO here, right now.

Senator BENNETT. We will contact GAO and see if we can’t bring

these things together.

I will leave you with one last comment. I do urge you to lay out

some contingency plans.

Mr. MANSKER. We have those, sir.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Lay out some contingency plans so you

know what to do in case the remediation that you are expecting in

fact turns out to have some problems and difficulties.

Mr. MANSKER. Last year, sir, you were very concerned and I am

sure you still are about the Congress getting its products.

Senator BENNETT. That’s right.

Mr. MANSKER. We have tested from both ends, from the Senate

over to GPO, and it works. We know it works. It is tested.

Mr. DIMARIO. The Senate contractor from the Sergeant at Arms

Office, Mitreteck, came over to GPO. They validated. We have
200

transmitted back and forth. I believe that information was conveyed to staff.

Senator BENNETT. That is reassuring. Let’s make sure.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are doing the same thing with the Federal

Register.

Mr. MANSKER. Yes.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are completely compliant with the Federal

Register and with the Executive Branch. We are attempting right

now to do the same thing with the House. On the House side, I believe because of the GAO briefings on the House side, again, I

think a briefing at which your staff may have been in attendance,

hearing what we were doing with the Senate, the House was asked

by Appropriations staff to get together with GPO and to validate

the interchange between the two of us.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator Feinstein.

EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask you about the increase in your Full Time Equivalents, which run from about 3,383 to 3,550. Where are these FTEs

going to be utilized?

Mr. DIMARIO. Throughout GPO we are in the same situation

that GAO explained and the Library of Congress explained. Our

employment base has gotten older and older. We have been on a

hiring freeze for 10 years.

When I came to GPO in 1971, we had 8,500 employees. We currently have 3,383. That is the current ceiling.

We have gotten down to where in every area of GPO—every

area—we are losing skill and talent. We have approximately a

third or greater of our employees in our Production Department, in

the main areas, eligible for retirement. We have not brought new

blood in anywhere in the agency to speak of. We have a limited

program of hiring distinguished college graduates, if we can get

them, out in the marketplace.

We are hurting in the computer field, the I-T area. It is just very

difficult to get these professionals.

We are hurting in every single area in the office. So to delineate

where they are would mean to name each of these groups.

But we need people and we need to bring them in and train them

in systems. We, this year, because of the Starr report and issues

facing the Congress, faced some monumental delivery issues. We

performed, we thought, extremely well in the circumstances.

We delivered to the Congress, both the House and the Senate,

products that they needed to carry on their work in the impeachment process, in the important activities that were going on, and

that workforce has been challenged. It has been overloaded.

I just cannot tell you—I have the highest respect for my people.

You cannot find people who are more dedicated, more professional, more willing to do the work. And what we have done over

and over and over is just to cut the activity and not replace people.

I am telling you that, in my professional judgment, we have gone

too far. We need to do something and put a brake on it.
201

All I am asking is to put us back to the level that we were at

a year ago.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So these 100-plus people go where?

Mr. DIMARIO. Some will go into the Production Department.

Some will go in our Data Systems area. Some will go in our Documents area. They will go in various places throughout the organization.

It is not 100 going to one area.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator Feinstein, we could begin with a list of

where certain numbers would go from time to time. But right off

the top of my head I can tell you that there are 3 needed in personnel. If you want me to outline some further, I could.

We have a backlog of job descriptions that, because of vacancies

not filled, are really getting to be of concern.

In our Bindery, we have positions that need to be filled because

we are not being able to get certain products out in a very timely

manner. We could go on like that.

Production has asked for 10 people just recently.

Mr. DIMARIO. We have already contracted out about 75 percent

to 80 percent of the work under a policy initiative. The policy initiative is to contract out as much as possible. We are doing that

and we continue to look at that effort.

But there are some functions that we necessarily have to be prepared to do internally with direct hires.

We have contracted out parts of the police organization. We have

contracted out portions of industrial cleaning functions. We are

doing those kinds of things to cut the numbers and to try to keep

just the professional staff that we need to run the place.

But it is very, very difficult. After 35-plus years of service, I will

tell you that it is the most difficult time to manage when you are

facing manpower shortages over and over again.

In my 6-plus years in this job, I have attempted to do everything

that the Congress has asked us to do and to do it in a timely fashion. But it reaches a point when you really have to say that there

is just a point where we need to have some brake on it. At least

allow us to regroup.

We have been examined over and over. I cannot tell you how

many GAO and other audit functions have happened, how many

times people are sent into the office, over and over and over again.

That consumes manpower.

We have people who are just dedicated to doing nothing but answering questions.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I gather there is a small conflict. Let’s just

see if we can clear it up.

What is your current on-board level?

Mr. DIMARIO. My understanding of the current on-board is, I believe, 3,316. For on-board I would have to ask my personnel director. We have people leave every day. We have people who come on

board every day.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it would be useful if we got that

straightened out because I am told it is 100 less than your FTE

ceiling.

Mr. DIMARIO. I believe it is.
202

Mr. MANSKER. You’re talking about actually on-board as opposed

to the FTE level?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. So, in other words, you have 100 fewer

people than you could have and yet you are asking for more, 100

more?

Mr. DIMARIO. On any given day, your FTE level, you may not

reach that level because you are hiring people and some people

may decide to retire, some people may get injured, they may go on

a sick/injured list.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are saying you are never up to your

full budgeted force?

Mr. DIMARIO. You may be and you may exceed the FTE at a

given point. For the year, you cannot exceed the FTE number.

We asked for that kind of specific language a couple of years ago,

that it was an FTE count at the end of the year. If it was an FTE

count on a daily basis, we would never be able to exceed it.

Mr. MANSKER. The on-board number drops considerably after the

first of the year because there are a lot of retirements.

When the list comes through of separations as well as hiring, the

separations right after January were very large because of retirements. That drops the on-board. But you immediately turn around

and try to start filling them.

Mr. DIMARIO. We’ve got vacancy announcements out. We are trying to hire people to fill those jobs.

Mr. MANSKER. So that is going to go back up and the average

will be much higher than the number of current on boards.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you saying you always function at 100

below your on-board level?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, no.

Mr. MANSKER. No.

Mr. DIMARIO. The number varies day by day. On-board

strength—you are always hiring. People leave. It’s true.

That number will change on a daily basis.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I don’t doubt that. But maybe the best way

to pursue this is to ask you to present it in writing to us.

Mr. DIMARIO. Sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. In this way we would have the monthly onboard levels for the past year, in writing.

Mr. DIMARIO. Sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then maybe we can take a look at that with

some clarity. I would appreciate that very much.

[The information follows:]

GPO monthly on-board employment, March 1998-February 1999

1998:

March ............................................................................................................... 3,506

April ................................................................................................................. 3,489

May .................................................................................................................. 3,474

June ................................................................................................................. 3,455

July .................................................................................................................. 3,439

August .............................................................................................................. 3,445

September ........................................................................................................ 3,435

October ............................................................................................................. 3,409

November ........................................................................................................ 3,397

December ......................................................................................................... 3,387
203

GPO monthly on-board employment, March 1998-February 1999—Continued

1999:

January ............................................................................................................ 3,330

February .......................................................................................................... 3,316

INTEGRATED PROCESSING SYSTEM

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you one quick thing about the

IPS system.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes. Mr. Buckley can answer that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. What has been the cause of the delays?

Mr. BUCKLEY. The Integrated Processing System is to replace our

order management process, the whole order management process,

from taking orders, the control of the inventory, financial reporting,

producing picking tickets for shipping the materials, et cetera.

It is replacing 18 old legacy systems that were not integrated

previously. So it is quite a complex process.

We have received delivery from our contractor of the basic system and modifications. But there are a number of bugs in the software that we are now testing and having remediated. So the delays

have been, actually, in integration of the new software that we are

getting and testing it for all of the very complex functions that we

do, both in terms of orders for single publications and orders for

subscriptions. We operate quite a complex order fulfillment process

in the sales program because we are a governmental function, and

because of the variety of publications and products that we offer.

Senator FEINSTEIN. When will it be fully implemented?

Mr. BUCKLEY. August 1 is my goal.

We will be able to test and should have it, the critical systems,

tested and operational, within a month. But then we will go

through a process of training the staff before we actually implement it on August 1.

Mr. DIMARIO. When I brought Mr. Buckley on board, the one

program I asked him to pay personal attention to and told him that

he was required to be responsible for was IPS, to bring that system

in because I believe it to be so critical to the system.

It’s exactly the same thing that I did when I hired Mr. Mansker.

I asked him to pay attention to and manage the Y2K program.

So those two programs have had the two highest level people,

subordinate to me, responsible for those programs—short of managing them myself.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think I got the answer, which is that you

expect it to be fully operational August 1. That will go down in the

record.

DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

Let me ask you about your procured printing services.

It is my understanding that some of the agencies are delinquent

in paying you and that has some impact on your operations. Which

agencies account for most of the delinquencies?

Mr. DIMARIO. In the past, the Department of Defense has been

the agency that has been most delinquent. They always run behind.

Bob may have some more definitive information on it. But we

have attempted to work with the Department of Defense. I have
204

spoken to their manager, their Defense Automated Printing Service

on it. We have seen some improvements in the past on it.

But that was the most delinquent single agency.

Mr. MANSKER. That is still the agency that is most delinquent.

However, we are working with them on Treasury’s electronic payment system and on a new credit card system of payment which

I think will greatly improve that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We have some additional questions which we will submit to you

in writing.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. We thank you for being here and good luck to

you on these various challenges.

Mr. DIMARIO. Thank you.

Senator BENNETT. We will work closely with you.

Thank you for being here.

Mr. DIMARIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the hearing:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Question. GPO testified before the House Legislative Subcommittee last month

that it would complete the implementation phase by the end of March. GPO’s testimony today states that 5 systems remain to be implemented. Will those 5 systems

be completed in the next 2 weeks?

Answer. No, the 5 systems that we addressed in our testimony before the Senate

are replacement projects that for various reasons have encountered delays and now

have implementation dates beyond March 1999.

Question. Based on GPO’s assessment that it has tested 35 systems, and has 5

remaining, do you have test and contingency plans in writing for the remaining 5

systems and when do you anticipate completing testing?

Answer. The current status of the 5 replacement projects follows:

New Integrated Processing System.—At the present time we are reviewing and

testing the contractor’s modified system that has been delivered and installed. This

review is identifying processing and program errors that are being submitted to the

contractor for software repairs. This phase is scheduled to be completed by the end

of April 1999. The next phase will be a full functional test and the final phase will

be to train all Documents personnel on the new system. This training will be completed within 3 months and the implementation of the new Integrated Processing

System is scheduled for August 1, 1999.

New General Ledger Package.—The new General Ledger database software has

been installed and 11 months of data for fiscal year 1998 have been loaded. Our

testing plans call for finalizing fiscal year 1998 and loading data for fiscal year 1999

through the financial reporting period of February 1999. After parallel testing the

financial statements for March and April, the live implementation of the new General Ledger is planned for the end of May 1999.

PROBE System.—We are currently testing the new system hardware and software. Implementation of the new system devices for the first area selected for installation is planned for the beginning of May 1999. The replacement devices will

continue to be installed throughout all areas of GPO with a completion date for full

implementation of all collection devices (110) scheduled for September 1999.

Mainframe Conversion Project.—The new mainframe has been installed and the

OS 390 operating system has been loaded and tested. The switch over to the new

system is currently planned for the third weekend in April 1999. At that time, all

of GPO’s mainframe application systems will be operational in the new OS 390 environment. However, not all of the other proprietary system software components that

are needed for the applications to run will be at their Y2K compliant versions. The
205

migration to a fully Y2K compliant platform on the mainframe will take an additional 2 months. The scheduled Y2K verification and implementation date for all existing mainframe applications on the new mainframe platform is the end of June

1999.

Automated Depository Distribution System.—The proposal for the replacement

equipment and software changes required to upgrade the existing Lighted Bin System is ready to be submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) for approval.

The entire project is scheduled for completion within 180 days after the JCP approval is received.

Question. The request includes $15 million for the revolving fund for items that

a business would consider capital expenses—Y2K costs, air conditioning, and elevator renovations. It is my understanding that GPO is supposed to build into its

charges overhead costs which are then deposited in the revolving fund and used for

these types of projects. Even if you discount for the Y2K problem, why is GPO requesting funds to pay for items that should have already been budgeted for in the

pricing structure?

Answer. You are correct, in part, that the ‘‘GPO is supposed to build into its

charges overhead costs which are then deposited in the revolving fund and used for

these types of projects.’’ That statement can only be implemented if the GPO is allowed to do so.

Title 44, Section 309 specifically states that ‘‘the Public Printer shall provide capital for the fund’’ for the Agency’s necessities ‘‘except building structures and land.’’

The air conditioning system and the elevators, as installed real property, are considered to be within the exception which requires appropriations—just as occurred in

1974 when the Congress directly appropriated $7.4 million for the current air conditioning system.

Until 1990, GPO operated on the policy of covering all of the necessary expenses

of the Agency, other than building structures and land, through funds that were deposited in the revolving fund. The revolving fund maintained a reasonable balance

to adequately achieve our planning objectives. We were able to keep approximately

$50 million of uncommitted-unrestricted funds for that use. If the revolving fund

was significantly reduced by needed expenditures, we would adjust our prices to recover to the adequate position.

In that year, however, the process was changed by the Joint Committee on Printing. By their directive, we were not permitted to raise our prices on our printing

products. The directive of the Joint Committee remained in effect for four years, and

the impact on the revolving fund and our operations was catastrophic. The burden

of increased costs of raw materials and labor had to be borne by the funds in the

revolving fund—thereby eliminating the needed funds ‘‘that should have been budgeted for in the pricing structure?’’

In those years when the directive of the Joint Committee was in effect, our operating losses skyrocketed—not because of the manner in which we were operating,

rather because of the restrictions that was placed on us by the Joint Committee.

It was not until Chairman Thomas, after seeing the devastating effect the directive

had on our operations, directed us to recover our costs of operations through our

pricing structure did we begin to come out of our dilemma.

Y2K costs which we seek to recover through direct appropriation have also come

from the already severely depleted revolving fund. We seek an appropriation for

only $8.1 million, which does not take into account any expenditures that were already in the planning schedule prior to Y2K becoming an issue nor any labor costs

of GPO employees. The appropriations request is an accounting of only those funds

that would otherwise not have been spent.

And, Senator, in addition to all the above, the Congress directed us to use up to

$11 million of revolving fund money to fund our own appropriation for Congressional Printing and Binding in 1998, of which $3.7 million was required.

For the past two years, we have recovered to the point of positive incomes slightly

above break-even. Even with the end-of-year positive balance, our uncommitted-unrestricted money continues to be severely diminished and is impacted by congressional work schedules. We do not draw direct appropriations; we only draw from the

Congressional Printing and Binding appropriation when we provide support to the

Congress.

So, to recap the situation, our appropriations request includes $15 million for the

revolving fund for capital expenses—Y2K costs, air conditioning, and elevator renovations for two reasons: (1) Title 44, Section 309 takes ‘‘building structures and

land’’ out of the classifications that are designated to be funded by the revolving

fund, and (2) Even if one concludes differently from (1) above, the managerial directives of the Congress since 1990 have virtually destroyed our ability to pay for these

projects out of the revolving fund without severely endangering our ability to timely
206

recover the committed-unrestricted funds of the revolving fund that are used during

lean periods of production.

Question. The budget requests $6 million for an air conditioning system. Last year

when this issue was raised this Committee directed GPO to seek authorization from

the oversight committee for a total plan for capital upgrades. Have you developed

a total plan and secured approval from the authorization committee?

Answer. In 1996 and again last year, we submitted an appropriation request for

$6 million for air conditioning repairs—the same amount that we are requesting

this year. The need is even greater now. We are fortunate that the system prevailed

during a relatively mild summer. We sought authorization from the Joint Committee on Printing and submitted ‘‘a total plan for capital upgrades’’.

The approval of our request was entangled in the Joint Committee’s efforts to get

S. 2288 through the Senate; however, we were never given any reason, other than

verbal, for inaction on our request. At this time, we are hopeful that the Joint Committee will approve this project in the very near future; however, we must have the

funding available to accomplish the needed repairs.

Question. The testimony noted that the procurement and sales areas lost revenue.

How does the procurement area lose revenue when a surcharge is placed on each

printing job? Does GPO have a plan to turn the procurement and sales areas

around?

Answer. GPO’s Printing Procurement Program seeks to fully recover its costs

through a surcharge of 6 percent (with a ceiling of $15,000 per job) and historically

comes very close to this goal with a slight surplus or loss at the end of each year.

This program fully recovered its costs in fiscal year 1996 and had a modest under

recovery in fiscal year 1997 of only .4 percent. However, the unexpected drop in

paper prices to historic lows during the past year, along with a $1,000,000 cost allocation for the Booz-Allen Hamilton study combined for an under recovery of 1.5 percent, or $7 million during fiscal year 1998.

To deal with this under recovery, GPO has been actively reducing its operating

costs as it implements a new LAN-based computer system throughout the Printing

Procurement Department. This new system will provide both personnel savings and

speed the processing of orders. Additionally, with the assistance of our customer

agencies, we have undertaken a review of the surcharge system and rates, and are

establishing new simplified purchasing agreements to increase work and improve

services. Paper prices now appear to be recovering and experienced a modest increase last quarter. We are hopeful that these combined efforts will result in full

recovery of costs for the printing procurement program during fiscal year 1999.

In fiscal year 1998, the Sales Program under recovered costs by $3.6 million on

revenue of $60.6 million. This compares to net income of $1.8 million in fiscal year

1997 on revenue of $67.8 million. Revenue from key Sales Program products has

been declining in recent years. Reasons for this decline include increased access to

these products through competitive print and online products offered for sale by private sector entities or other Government agencies such as the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), as well as through no-fee access via GPO’s web site. In

addition, a decline in Government agency publishing has resulted in fewer printed

information products available through the Sales Program. Sales Program management is currently conducting an intensive review to determine ways to increase revenue, decrease expenses, and introduce more print and electronic products into the

program.

The Sales Program is taking a number of steps to increase the availability of its

products through the use of electronic commerce. The program’s online Sales Product Catalog (SPC) is accessible by the public via GPO’s web site, and in the next

few weeks, new encryption software will ensure secure ordering. The electronic file

of the SPC can also be downloaded via FTP from GPO’s Federal Bulletin Board. The

program is establishing an online Government bookstore on the World Wide Web

and has begun listing selected sales titles on the Amazon and Barnes and Noble

booksellers web sites.

The Sales Program is also working with publishing agencies to increase the number of their salable products in GPO’s sales inventory. General customer satisfaction

and product-specific customer surveys are being used to understand and improve

Sales Program services to the public. A new category of sales products deemed to

be of historical significance has been created to ensure long-term public access to

such titles.

Question. The testimony notes that overtime utilization has increased by 11 percent in the past year and that employment levels are dangerously low. What has

GPO done to cross train current employees from areas that are under utilized to

assist in areas that are busier and require overtime?
207

Answer. Under separate cover, we have transmitted to you the number of employees on board at GPO at this time. We have continued to cut staff in all areas of

the Agency in order to reach the congressionally mandated number of FTE’s—

3,383—a number we feel is dangerous for the Agency’s effort to timely deliver and

quality product to the Congress.

We have stated this fact in testimony before the Congress for the past two years.

There is only one area in the GPO where there is any hint of under utilization. In

the recently acquired computer-to-plate operation, we are working to provide cross

training to those individuals who will be put out of their current positions by this

new technology. In the next two years, we hope to be able to assimilate all of the

effected men and women into new areas.

Because of the continued congressionally mandated reductions in FTE’s, there are

no additional under utilized workforces at GPO. Because there is no need whatsoever for a mandated ‘‘reduction in force—RIF,’’ we were not in a position to offer

our employees the ‘‘buyout’’ that was authorized in the last year’s appropriation legislation. Just the opposite is our need—rather than a RIF, we must have the ability

to correctly and adequately staff our production and management functions to guarantee timely and quality products to Congress.

With 232 ‘‘fill actions’’ actively progressing toward fulfillment in GPO, it is vital

that we return to the level of 3,550 FTE’s authorized by Congress last year. We will

continue to cut positions where it is possible. The record of our success in that field

should not be ignored when considering our only request to take a ‘‘breather’’ from

the cuts that have transformed GPO in the past two decades from a workforce of

8,500 to our current level. GPO will offer retraining opportunities to any employees

that may become underutilized due to changes in technology and workload mix.

Question. GPO has been delivering depository library materials electronically for

a number of years. How many depository libraries have no computer access?

Answer. Electronic distributions to the depository libraries consist primarily of online Government information products, typically accessible via the World Wide Web.

A minor percentage of electronic distributions are CD–ROM products. Based on the

results from GPO’s most recent Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries, only 32 of

the 1,358 responding depository libraries (2.4 percent) reported no plans to provide

Internet access for the public by January 1, 1999. The same survey responses indicated that only 29 depository libraries (2.1 percent) lacked the capability to use CD–

ROM’s.

Question. At last years hearing we discussed the possibility of renting excess

space at the GPO building to another government agency. Have you looked into that

possibility?

Answer. We have no plans at this time to lease space in the main GPO building.

As we indicated last year, the available space is limited, as are the opportunities

for renting space. GPO is working with a landlord to return 25,000 square feet of

leased warehouse space located in Laurel, Maryland.

(209)

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF JANET S. ZAGORIN, CHAIR, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ORTON, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM UTAH AND MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Senator BENNETT. Our last panel is the American Bar Association, from which we have two witnesses: Ms. Janet Zagorin, who

chairs the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the

Law Library of Congress. She is accompanied by one of my constituents, former Congressman Bill Orton from Utah. He is a member of the Committee on the Law Library of Congress and has testified before us previously.

I assume that the clock has run and we don’t have to swear you

in at this time. [Laughter.]

Mr. ORTON. I think so. Yes.

Senator BENNETT. That was one of the more interesting experiences of my new chairmanship, where I didn’t know how to do it.

He should have handed me a piece of paper telling me how to do

that.

We welcome you both and look forward to your testimony.

Ms. ZAGORIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator

Feinstein. We are very honored to be able to speak to you this

morning.

Senator BENNETT. We apologize for the length of your wait today.

Ms. ZAGORIN. That’s fine. We are very grateful that you allowed

us to speak once again. I am certainly honored that Bill is a member of our committee now and is going to participate in my testimony.

This committee has always been very supportive, the ABA is supportive of the Law Library of Congress. As I think you know, we

have had a standing committee at the ABA for close to 70 years

now to support the Law Library of Congress. So it is an enormous

commitment on our part because we think that the Law Library,

contrary to what some people may have thought, becomes a much

more important part of our culture and plays a much more important role, particularly as we approach the Millennium. Technology

and the need for information I think become much more powerful.

It is essentially your law library. It is the library across the

street from you and for every member of Congress, and it is accessible to every member of State or Federal Governments and your

staffs. I think most of you probably use it for some very, very sophisticated, confidential, timely, and critical information.

I think, as we see changes in information technology and as we

see changes in just the role of government throughout the United
210

States, as well as throughout the world, we think that the Law Library becomes the library across the street essentially for every citizen.

I mean, you and Bill come from a State that is very far away

from Washington, D.C. And yet, I think the Law Library has as

much impact there as it certainly has in the State where I live, in

New York, or in California, if not more.

Senator BENNETT. California is even farther away. [Laughter.]

Ms. ZAGORIN. And I learned that at the library. [Laughter.]

But it is not really farther away in certain respects.

I know that you heard testimony this morning about numbers

and about dollars. Bill and I really want to summarize my written

testimony and make a couple of key points.

We think that the need to have access to what is there—and you

can see that from the charts I provided to you—to what is the largest legal collection in the world is an unbelievable accomplishment

of this democracy. It has been accomplished over 200 years.

It contains our failings, our weaknesses, from the slave codes of

every jurisdiction to our greatest triumphs.

We think that we at the ABA are committed to making sure that

this access to information for students, for senior citizens, whether

they need to know about Medicare information, Congressional debate, access to information on foreign jurisdictions, this collection

must be both maintained and enhanced.

In addition to being that kind of library for every citizen in the

United States, I think that we have an opportunity here that goes

way beyond what I think are very modest dollars. This committee

was very, very supportive of our request for the Law Library last

year.

But I think that the opportunity is, again, as we look around our

world and look around our country, it is there. We want to show

what the strength of a democratic Nation is and the rule of law.

We believe very fervently that there is a nonpartisan and completely I think meaningful way to show that; that Congress is willing to open its Law Library to access by anyone, anyone who can

get on the Internet and look at the Web page.

I think the more people who go on-line for information, from

school children to people in China, to people around the world who

are looking for models for the rule of law, models for democracy,

show that it speaks volumes that this Congress allows—I mean, obviously, not your confidential CRS reports—but people can get on

and see the Law Library of Congress.

We provide in this country access to every statute, every decision, regulations, Congressional debate, amendments to bills, and

access even to the foreign law collection of the United States as

well. It becomes a very powerful tool without a lot of statement.

I mean, we no longer do at the State Department some of the

publications that many of us believed were a very valuable expression of the rule of law and models.

I think that if the Law Library of Congress expands its role in

GLIN, about which you probably heard this morning, the Global

Legal Information Network which brings countries together, increases the digitized material that is available from our historic

collections and on-line currently on the Web page, this costs some
211

money—to digitize and provide information. Many of the agencies

that you heard from are putting their material there. It is all in

the Library of Congress. It is all at the Law Library.

We would like to be able to see that immediately up on their Web

page.

I think that it has a very, very deep and resonant impact on our

citizenry to say that this is a democracy, this is what it means, you

see the good and the bad.

I think the request of this hearing has been fairly modest for

what we believe is an impact that can go well beyond the dollars.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So I think Bill might have a word or two to say. But we really

would appreciate it if you would support the Law Library’s request.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET S. ZAGORIN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar Association

(ABA) appreciates the opportunity to speak in support of the fiscal year 2000 Legislative Appropriations budget. My name is Janet Zagorin and I am Chair of the

American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress. Accompanying me is Bill Orton, former Member of Congress from Utah, and a member

of the ABA Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress. We are here at

the request of Philip Anderson, President of the Association. In my non-volunteer

life, I am a law librarian. I am currently the Director of Practice Development at

the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the ABA in support of the budget request of the Library of Congress

and its Law Library.

The American Bar Association is the world’s largest professional organization representing a large and diverse voluntary membership of over 400,000 attorneys nationwide. The ABA created the Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress

in 1932, as a measure of its dedication to preserving our nation’s Law Library and

its vast collection of legal literature and sources. Since its inception, the Standing

Committee has consistently acted as the Association’s liaison and voice of the legal

profession concerning the continued development and operation of the Law Library

of Congress.

On behalf of the Association, I commend the Congress for having established one

of the most prestigious and comprehensive legal collections in the world. This year,

the Law Library has asked for a modest increase in its funding, which we believe

is the minimum appropriation required if the Law Library is to continue to provide

first-rate research service to Congress, maintain its role as an innovator in the delivery of electronic information, and preserve its treasures for future generations.

I know that you are facing many difficult choices as you contemplate the Legislative Branch budget, but I hope that you will spare our nation’s Library in those efforts. As in recent years, the Library has requested only the vital essentials and a

reasonable increase to continue to meet the demands of its strategic plan and a rapidly changing world. The Law Library, likewise, must be able to continue to maintain its role as the ultimate legal resource center for our citizens. In spite of shrinking resources, the Law Library continues to provide service to the public at large

in American law through its reading room, and on foreign and comparative law on

a priority basis through legal specialists in its research directorate. An enhanced

web site for the Law Library to further facilitate access to legal reference services

is being developed.

The Law Library is extremely grateful for the support of the Committee on Appropriations. As you may be aware, in the past, the Library has undergone significant

reductions in staffing and services. While the funding the Law Library received last

year enabled the Law Library to maintain and improve certain areas, the Library

is still forced to confront the considerable downsizing that took place in previous

years. We ask for Congress’ continued support in granting the Library the resources

it needs to develop, maintain, and preserve its collection and its reference services,

and to prevent further erosion of its workforce.

Faced with the necessity of developing a leading presence in the electronic age

while maintaining its preeminent legal collection, the Library of Congress must
212

have adequate funding to remain a leader in serving the Congress and the nation.

While the Library is a critical resource available to every citizen of our country, immediate access to the great resources of the Law Library should be made more

available to everyone—from isolated senior citizens to urban school children—via

the internet. This, however, can only be accomplished by increased funding for the

Law Library’s technical support team. Even with the generous funding Congress

granted last year, the Law Library is unable to achieve the level of research services

it believes Congress deserves and requires. For example, the Law Library must support its entire research program with a staff of seven, and the largest legal collection in the world has only two part-time staff responsible for the filing of one million

loose-leaf pages annually. We believe that proper funding for the Law Library’s

technical support team and computer systems is vitally important to ensure the integrity of the Law Library’s collections and to provide Congress with the services

upon which it must depend!

Fiscal year 2000 will be a ‘‘Year of Great Transition,’’ for the Library of Congress.

One of the Library’s building blocks for this transition is the expansion of the Global

Legal Information Network (GLIN). GLIN is the digital future of the Law Library.

What began as a simple card file over fifty years ago has grown into an international network of the world’s legislative bodies sharing via the Internet the full

text of their nation’s laws and regulations. The GLIN database contains information

on over 70,000 laws and regulations from 46 countries, and provides Congress with

a direct link to foreign, comparative, and international laws.

The Law Library is also contributing approximately 40 percent of the digital information to the Library’s National Digital Library program. Through a program entitled, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, the Law Library is making available through the Internet the debates and documents of the first 42 Congresses including debates on ratification of the constitution, the records of the federal convention, and the debates and laws of the Continental Congress. The ABA hopes that

you will approve the budget request which will enable the Library to continue adding Congressional records to the internet. The funding requested for the Library’s

automation projects, including GLIN, will undoubtedly strengthen and enhance its

efficiency and effectiveness internally and globally, in serving the Congress, in expanding public access to its invaluable collections, and in sustaining its role as the

leader and progressive host of this vast knowledge.

Giving the Library of Congress and its Law Library the support it needs to preserve the knowledge and ideas, that sustain us as a community and a nation, would

be a significant gift to our country and to the Library in its bicentennial year, which

will be celebrated in 2000. It is the oldest Federal cultural institution in our country, serving Congress as its priority client, all Federal Agencies, as well as state and

local governments. But it is also important to remember that the nation at large

is served by the Library. As technology and the information age advance, new opportunities to serve Congress and the nation are available, but at the same time

new challenges exist that make support for the Library even more crucial. At this

critical time, it is imperative that we continue to support this great institution as

we move into the new millennium.

In this turbulent and challenging world, the Law Library represents a powerful

reaffirmation that we are a democratic nation of laws and that access to our laws

is and should remain open and free. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar Association appreciates your courtesy in allowing me

to appear before you today. We hope that you will look most favorably upon the

budget request of the Library of Congress and its Law Library.
213
214

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Bill?

Mr. ORTON. Thank you, Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein,

first for the privilege of speaking with you for just a few minutes

and second for your historic support of the Library of Congress and

the Law Library of Congress in particular.

We thank you for the generosity that the committee has shown

over the past few years.

I recall when I first came to Congress that we had an annual deficit of over $350 billion. We are now in a surplus.

To do that, to get there, the Congress had to cut budgets. There

has been an impact for those budget cuts.

The Law Library of Congress, I think we all can be very proud

of them for what they have been able to accomplish with the few

resources that they have. But just practically speaking, if you were

to grant them their entire budget request this year, it still would

not put them back to the level of staffing at which they were in

1994, when we started cutting those budgets dramatically.

As a practical matter, to show you the impact of those staff reductions, the law is an ever-changing field. To keep up with the

law, many services that report the various changes in statutes,

cases, regulations, et cetera, issue weekly and oftentimes daily update sheets.

Those sheets come into the Library of Congress and if they are

not posted, you don’t have the current law.

They are, right now, millions of pages behind in posting those

updates, simply because they do not have the clerical support to do

it.
215

If you don’t have a current statute before you, you cannot rely

on the accuracy of the information you are getting from your own

library.

So it seems to me that you have two choices: either abolish the

library or fund it adequately to provide you with current, up-todate information.

Senator BENNETT. Are you suggesting that the request we have

gotten from the Library is too low and that we should increase it?

Mr. ORTON. Being out of Congress, I would even encourage you

to up it, you know, give them more than they asked to let them

get back to the staff levels at which they have been previously.

They have a number of things going on beyond just operating the

library, as well. Janet mentioned GLIN. You heard from both Dr.

Billington and Dr. Medina previously. They have adequately laid

out the background for their needs.

But as the American Bar Association, as a group of this culture

and country who rely on the law, we rely on the Law Library as

well and we would encourage you to fully fund them, to provide the

request—it is the Congress’ library—so that you can rely on it and

know that you are getting current, up-to-date information. Then

we, as the legal community, can rely upon it and all of your constituents and our colleagues and citizens in this country all can

rely upon that library.

So we thank you for what you have done in the past and urge

you to meet the needs that they have submitted.

I don’t know if you have any questions.

Senator BENNETT. I think you have made the case in very compelling fashion. We appreciate your interest and your time to come

in here to do this.

Mr. ORTON. Thank you very much.

Ms. ZAGORIN. We thank you very much on behalf of the ABA.

Senator BENNETT. Do you have any further questions? If you do,

you are presiding.

Senator FEINSTEIN. May I ask just one quick question?

Senator BENNETT. As I say, if you have further questions, then

you are presiding. You can then take whatever time you want.

Mr. ORTON. And while you are presiding, you can up the request.

Senator FEINSTEIN (presiding). All right, then. I will finish and

close up.

Ms. ZAGORIN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have just a quick question. These other libraries, do they do the updates as well? And do they make it available to everybody?

Ms. ZAGORIN. Those are the five largest law library collections in

the United States. As you see, the Law Library has the largest collection, built over 200 years, the smallest book budget and the

smallest staff.

They all have the same access to materials. But they do not provide access to Congress. Nor do they provide access to citizens.

You may pay to use their libraries. If you are a wealthy law firm

like mine or a corporation, you can have a subscription. They are

not open to the public except for the depository part.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So does one have to pay to use the Congressional Library? No?
216

Ms. ZAGORIN. No. It is completely open. Any citizen anywhere,

anybody, can come in.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is it the only resource that is completely

open?

Ms. ZAGORIN. Except for the public library system that you would

have in each city or State.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right.

Ms. ZAGORIN. They log on to this overall Web that the Library

of Congress, the Law Library, has. But the Law Library is the only

one that has complete access and has the collection that it has. You

can even get reference help.

You may go to the Law Library or call up, or have your State

library call, and get research—from anywhere.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think you have made a good point. I would

certainly be supportive of your request.

Ms. ZAGORIN. Thank you very much. We think it is so important.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I thank you very much for taking the time

to do this.

Ms. ZAGORIN. It is important to all of us.

Thank you very much.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

There being no further business, we will recess the meeting.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(217)

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Bennett and Stevens.

U.S. SENATE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

STATEMENTS OF:

GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

TIMOTHY S. WINEMAN, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.

This is our last hearing on the Legislative Branch budget request

for fiscal 2000. I am delighted that we are moving along in the pattern that we are and will have completed the Legislative Branch

hearings by the end of March.

Before we begin with our witnesses, I will surprise no one by

raising my favorite subject, Y2K. I have been warning all of the

agencies that come before this subcommittee on how important it

is and how personally embarrassing it would be, after all the noise

I have made on this subject, if everybody else is compliant and the

Senate is not. I understand that word has gotten out and we are

going to be buried with more information than we want today, so

I look forward to that.

I have a statement from Senator Craig, a member of the subcommittee who was not able to be here, and it will be placed in the

record at this point.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. The Sergeant

at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Congressional Budget Office all provide services which are vital to each of us. I would also like to take a second and

welcome the new Sergeant at Arms, James Ziglar, to his first budget hearing. I look

forward to many more hearings with Mr. Ziglar.

There are several important issues that this committee is addressing, and I don’t

want to discount them. However, the issue that I want to focus on today is the

changes that are taking place with the Computer Information Services (CIS) that
218

the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate Rules Committee

are involved with.

As the Committee is aware, last July Senate offices were notified by the Senate

Rules Committee and the Sergeant at Arms that the online services which are offered to Senate offices were going to be dramatically changed. The Senate, through

its Legislative Information Service (LIS), will provide the bulk of online legislative

research. Services not provided by LIS may be purchased by outside vendors, either

by the Senate or by individual offices. The Committee had concerns with the proposal and voiced these concerns with language in the fiscal year 1999 Legislative

Branch Appropriations Conference Report.

The temporary program, valid through the end of this calendar year, works to address the temporary concerns of offices who were feared they would lose key research capabilities they rely on. However, it does not address the fundamental question of where these changes are headed and why they are taking place.

Over the last few years, my office has been pleased with the CIS offerings and

has taken advantage of them, perhaps more than many offices. My staff has been

pleased with what the private sector has to offer. While many of my staff also use

LIS, there are many weaknesses in LIS for one simple reason—LIS does not compete with other vendors and, therefore, does not have an incentive to be bigger, better, and faster than the competitors.

This raises a key point. Several private sector companies already take legislative

information and compile it into a searchable, online format. They are not simply

taking information we generate and selling it back to us. They are adding value to

it and we are paying for that. However, they also sell their service to private entities. Consequently, we are not covering the entire cost of their operation. We share

it with all of their customers. This being the case, why is the Senate duplicating

the efforts of the private sector?

I also want to address concerns about Senate offices losing services they have

come to rely on. For starters, there are several services which are offered by the

private sector which are not offered by LIS. From detailed summaries and analysis

of bills and committee hearings to extensive databases of periodicals and legal documents, the outside services offer a wealth of information that Senate offices depend

on.

I hope that as this process moves forward, the Sergeant at Arms, the Rules Committee, and the Secretary of the Senate will ensure that the Senate’s staff and Members have the research tools they need while ensuring that our tax dollars are spent

wisely.

Senator BENNETT. Our first witness is the Hon. Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate, and we want to welcome Mr. Tim Wineman,

who took over the job of Financial Clerk last year after Stewart

Balderson retired. Mr. Wineman, we recognize that this is your

first hearing before the subcommittee in this position and we are

delighted to have your willingness to serve in this position and look

forward to hearing from you.

The Secretary’s budget request is $15.7 million. I note that this

is the third year that Mr. Sisco has asked for a level budget, with

only the adjustment for the mandatory cost of living increase. I recognize that there are often times when you cannot do that, but I

am delighted that when you can do it, you do do it, and we appreciate you being here.

So Mr. Sisco, we will hear from you, and you can introduce Mr.

Wineman if he has information for us at the appropriate time.

STATEMENT OF GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Mr. SISCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here

this morning and, as you indicated, Tim is here with me. Tim is

the Financial Clerk and has been since last May 1, and I would

note that in his capacity as Financial Clerk he has submitted to

the committee a budget for the entire Senate. My testimony this

morning will be targeted just to the budget of the Secretary of the
219

Senate. Tim is also responsible for the financial management information system, or FMIS, that we will hear more about later.

My full statement has been filed with the committee, including

the annual reports of each of the 24 departments of our office. This

morning I will be brief. I will include Y2K, our budget request, and

then I would like to make a comment or two on the Capitol Visitor

Center.

Senator BENNETT. Please.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. SISCO. First, the budget request. As you indicated, for the

third year in a row we are proposing a budget that holds the line

on administrative expenses and reflects an increase in the payroll

area for the COLA only. In dollars, that is $15,713,000,

$14,202,000 for salaries, and $1,511,000 for other expenses. It is an

increase of $508,000, or 3.3 percent, over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $15,205,000.

From an operational standpoint, that is our request. The two

major projects that are ongoing are the financial management information system, or FMIS, which I just mentioned, that Tim is responsible for, and a legislative information system, or LIS.

We will continue to be funded for those for the remainder of fiscal year 1999, and for 2000, using the existing budgets that we

have, and I do not project the need to request any new money for

these two projects in 1999, or 2000. The only possible request may

be to reprogram some of the unused funds from the appropriations

we have already been provided in the administrative area.

Y2K COMPLIANCE

Now, to Y2K and the compliance status of the computers in the

Office of the Secretary. While the Sergeant at Arms ensures Y2K

compliance for all the computer equipment in the Senate, the Office

of the Secretary has worked closely with the Office of the Sergeant

at Arms to ensure, first, that FMIS and LIS are engineered from

the beginning to be Y2K-compliant, and, second, that all other computers and systems used in the Office of the Secretary are Y2Kcompliant.

We are on course to replace, repair, or retire anything that is not

fully compliant. Most of that work is already done, and the rest

will be completed no later than the end of September.

FMIS

In terms of Y2K and the development of the FMIS, FMIS replaces a conglomeration of more than a dozen financial systems

scattered throughout the Senate, none of which are Year 2000 compliant, and provides a single Y2K-compliant financial management

system for both the general ledger and for purchasing.

Specifically, the KPMG Peat Marwick FAMIS 4.0 system, the financial accounting management information system, is the technology for the general ledger system, and KPMG’s second package,

called ADPICS 4.5, the advanced purchasing and inventory control

system, is the purchasing system that we are using. These two software packages from KPMG are commercial off-the-shelf packages
220

already in use in the Federal Government, and they are warranted

by KPMG to be Y2K-compliant. Even though KPMG has warranted

that, these systems are so important to our financial operations

that we are going to do independent testing and verification over

the summer, and we are now preparing to select an independent

contractor to help us test those two systems to double-check and

make sure that they are compliant.

The new general ledger system is based on the standard general

ledger of the Federal Government, and it converts the general ledger from a cash basis of accounting to an obligation and accrualbased accounting system. This is a mandate that has been there for

a while. The system uses OMB object codes so that the budget authority and expenditures can be reported throughout the Senate

and consistent with other Federal agencies, and FMIS will also deliver the capability to produce a consolidated audit of all financial

statements for the entire Senate, beginning with fiscal year 2000.

Again, that is part of our mandate.

Tim and the Disbursing Office staff will also be upgrading the

payroll system to Y2K compliance by the end of September, but

they are not installing a new system. The payroll system will be

made compliant by a software upgrade, which is the Integral 9.5

system. It is a Year 2000 compliant version of the Integral payroll

system that is already used by the Disbursing Office. It is a proven

product, already in use in a number of other places, and it also is

warranted by the vendor.

We have the original vendor installing the upgrade in the Disbursing Office, and it is being acceptance-tested at the present

time, so we do not anticipate a problem there.

LIS

Shifting to the legislative information system, this also is a mandated system, with the objective of providing desktop access to the

content and status of all Senate legislative information and supporting documents. Year 2000 compliance is being engineered, as

a part of the LIS system development, by replacing the non-Y2Kcompliant LEGIS system that the Senate has used for some time.

To ensure that LIS meets the needs of all the Senate users, the

LIS Project Office, which is comprised of personnel from the Secretary’s Office, the Sergeant at Arms, the Library of Congress,

KPMG, and a representative from the Rules and Administration

Committee, has established a user group to collect the needs and

priorities of the Senate offices. We sent out questionnaires and got

feedback from those questionnaires, and major enhancements to

the system have been based on the user feedback.

For example, users can now perform detailed searches for particular amendments by amendment number, by bill number, by the

date introduced, or by the Senate sponsor, and users can also now

print entire amendments from their desks using their personal

computers.

We have all roll call votes from the 101st Congress to date available online for access by Senate staff through their personal computers.

Our new LIS home page provides a link to a menu of the latest

official committee scheduling and subcommittee scheduling reports.
221

This makes it easier for committees to schedule hearings at times

that avoid or reduce conflicts with meetings of other committees or

subcommittees that have some of the same Senators as members.

We have got all that computerized comprehensively for the first

time.

The new document management system, or DMS, of the LIS will

replace the existing LEGIS system. The DMS will collect, manage,

store, retrieve and report various types of data by tracking information in different formats from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘Z’’, from ‘‘A’’, the time

something is introduced into the legislative system, until ‘‘Z’’, when

it goes to the National Archives.

The DMS implementation phase is progressing and it will be finished in August of 1999. This schedule also allows time to complete

the thorough testing that we began on February 26, 1999. DMS

end-to-end testing components have been identified and the LIS

Project Office is actively addressing the Y2K compliance of the external interfaces.

DMS will interface with the amendment tracking system. The

committee scheduling systems—the other ones that I mentioned—

and these interfaces will also be Y2K-compliant.

The Office of the Secretary is providing training for the Senate

clerks, systems administrators, and the end users. Since each audience has distinct needs, the training approach is highly customized.

Every effort is being made to provide a comprehensive training program for the users of the new system.

The successful implementation to date of these two systems,

FMIS and LIS, has depended on the outstanding cooperation and

dedication and funding of this committee along with many other organizations that are involved in one of the systems, or both of the

systems, including the Rules Committee and the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Member offices, and the committee offices, the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research

Service, the General Accounting Office, and last but not least, the

Government Printing Office. We have all worked together to get to

this point in the development of FMIS and LIS.

OTHER SYSTEMS

For other systems within the Secretary’s Office, we have an information systems department that in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms has made an assessment of the Y2K compliance of

all other hardware and software within our office—that is, all nonFMIS and non-LIS systems, hardware and equipment. We have

carefully thought through plans that are on course to replace or upgrade all of the noncompliant systems, systems programs and applications in a timely fashion.

We began this process in May of 1998, with a detailed assessment by Mitretek, an outside firm, to look at all computer-related

activity in conjunction with the Y2K Project Office of the Sergeant

at Arms. The assessment was finished in December of 1998.

During 1998, all of the personal computers within our office were

updated or replaced with compliant hardware, and so from a hardware standpoint we are totally compliant.

Even more importantly, the outdated network transfer method of

transmitting the text of our legislation, and all the other work that
222

we do in print, from the Capitol to the Government Printing Office

has been replaced. Legislation is now transferred electronically to

GPO via a Y2K-compliant gateway.

The last major Y2K projects include a mainframe used by our

stationery room and our gift shop, which is not a part of the Senate

computer center. The mainframe will be replaced by servers. The

Sergeant at Arms will provide Y2K-compliant hardware and software for the Office of Printing and Document Services, and this

will be the last major replacement. That is on course for completion

not later than the end of September 1999.

Further details on Y2K are in the full statement, in the information systems section of the annual reports.

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

The last topic I want to touch on is the Capitol Visitor Center.

The 105th Congress took an important step by authorizing the visitor center and appropriating $100 million for the Architect of the

Capitol to use for planning, engineering, and designing and to construct the visitor center.

At that time, the best cost estimates of the Architect for building

it, furnishing it, and finishing the exhibits and addressing security

enhancements totaled $159 million. The legislation that was passed

last year anticipated that the $100 million would be supplemented

by a private fundraising plan. The Secretary and the Clerk of the

House were to develop that, and recommend it back to the Congress, and we have been working on that.

We have had the Pew Charitable Trusts, which recently took the

lead in giving and successfully raising funds to improve the Independence Mall region in Philadelphia, and which has contributed

to many projects of major educational and cultural importance to

the country, and other trusts and other individuals contact our two

offices—that is, my office and the office of the Clerk of the House—

and have offered on an unsolicited basis their financial support and

expertise and other support to help with the Capitol Visitor Center

project.

With the level of interest in the visitor center that has been apparent, a private fundraising campaign could readily raise, in my

opinion, $70 million.

If you combine the $70 million and the $100 million that is appropriated, for a total of $170 million, that would cover the last

best estimate of $159 million that the Architect provided last fall

for the cost of the project, and would leave us an $11 million contingency.

In addition, the Capitol Preservation Commission at the present

time has a balance of $26.6 million, which was raised privately,

and which could be made available for the visitor center project, if

the commission voted for that and it were needed. And to the extent that a fundraising campaign raises more than what is needed

for the initial cost, which I believe could be done, the excess could

be reserved for expanded exhibits or for an endowment for longterm maintenance and future educational programs and new visitors’ services. If we got aggressive in a fundraising campaign, we

could even pay back the $100 million appropriation to the extent

that was the will of the Congress.
223

PREPARED STATEMENTS

With the project being authorized for the first time, with the

$100 million appropriation this past year, and with a successful

fundraising campaign, the vision of the Senate for a modern visitor

center to receive the public and provide accurate and complete information about the Congress and how it works, and to meet modern security requirements, is well within reach. I am committed to

help fulfill this vision at the direction of the Senate, and work with

the House to make a visitor center a reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY SISCO

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

As the Committee is aware, the Office of the Secretary has requested freeze-level

budgets, except for (COLA’s), each year since fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 2000

request again maintains level funding, excluding inflation, even as the responsibilities and workload of the Office have become greater than ever.

I respectfully propose an operational budget for the Office of the Secretary for fiscal 2000 of $15,713,000, consisting of $14,202,000 for salaries and $1,511,000 for expenses.

The requested budget is an increase of $508,000, or 3.3 percent, over the fiscal

year 1999 appropriation of $15,205,000. The entire increase is to the salaries side

of the budget, and is accounted for by a projected cost of living adjustment (COLA),

as follows: $104,000 for the annualization of the 1999 calendar year COLA (3.1 percent for October through December 1999); and $404,000 for the calendar year 2000

COLA estimate (3.9 percent for January through September 2000).

The amount requested for expenses is the same as the fiscal year 1999 budget

of $1,511,000, and this figure has been maintained for the past three fiscal years.

While the Office of the Secretary has held the line on administrative expenses,

the change in format adopted last year is carried forward and will be permanent.

Before 1999, line items were based on expense categories (some for as little as

$500). The fiscal year 1999 budget grouped expenses by department, using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) object classification codes that are standard

throughout the Federal Government. The new format is necessary for FMIS, and

also facilitates management within the Office of the Secretary by making it easier

to control the expenses incurred by the users in particular departments. There is

no change from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 in the budget figures submitted

by department.

With the approval of the Committee on Appropriations, the Office of the Secretary

has utilized administrative expense savings to help fund annual expenditures for

the FMIS and LIS strategic planning initiatives. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms

has also contributed to LIS. Utilizing existing budgetary resources has made it unnecessary to request additional funds for these mission-critical projects. FMIS and

LIS will continue to be funded using existing budgetary resources to the greatest

extent possible for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 and for fiscal year 2000.

IMPLEMENTING THE MANDATED SYSTEMS OF FMIS AND LIS

With respect to both systems, two points are key: (1) No new funds were requested for fiscal year 1999 or are requested for fiscal year 2000; and (2) Year 2000

compliance is being engineered into the new systems.

Financial Management Information System (FMIS)

FMIS, a mandated update to the financial management systems of the Senate,

is consolidating and replacing a conglomeration of stand-alone financial systems located throughout the Senate, none of them Year 2000 compliant, with a single financial management system that is warranted to be Year 2000 compliant, while

converting the general ledger from cash-basis accounting to obligation- and accrualbasis accounting based on the Standard General Ledger of the Federal Government,

and having the capability to produce consolidated, auditable financial statements.
224

The mandate is being implemented on schedule, the result of considerable effort

by the entire staff of the Disbursing Office, many staff members of the Sergeant at

Arms, and the primary outside contractor, KPMG Peat Marwick.

There are four major phases of the FMIS strategic initiative: Replace, Rollout, Report, and Reengineer. The main components of the Replace phase include the replacement of the Disbursing Office general ledger system (DOVES), the upgrading

of the Sergeant at Arms mainframe core financial system to support the financial

management operation for the Senate on a single, Year 2000 compliant platform,

and the replacement and deployment of an automated procurement system within

the Offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms. These tasks were completed

October 1, 1998.

The selection of the Senate for the core financial and procurement systems are

the KPMG Federal FAMIS 4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 products that are both warranted

by KPMG to be Year 2000 compliant. Federal FAMIS (Financial Accounting Management Information System) is the general ledger system that replaces a conglomeration of more than a dozen existing systems. ADPICS (Advanced Purchasing and

Inventory Control System) is an upgrade to the purchasing system used by the Sergeant at Arms, and replaces purchasing capabilities of several other systems

throughout the Senate. The FAMIS and ADPICS products are being integrated so

that the Senate may instantly record the procurement activity as a financial event

on the general ledger. The ADPICS product is also being used as the front end

voucher preparation system that will replace the systems currently being used by

the Member Offices and Committees.

The Rollout phase of FMIS involves the distribution of the financial and purchasing systems throughout Member Offices, Committees, and other administrative

offices of the Senate. The two main tasks in this phase are the training of functional

staff and technical support of the offices once they are online. The third phase of

FMIS is Report, referring to financial reporting. The Disbursing Office has developed a classification structure that will enable entity level reporting and the general

ledger structure necessary to create proprietary financial statements. One of the

major tasks in the reporting phase is the development and integration of a fixed

asset module that will provide timely asset valuation and allow the financial staff

to depreciate the value of equipment used by the Senate. Another major reporting

task is the complete revision of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate to extract

data from FMIS more efficiently than was the case in previous systems. Development and distribution of financial reports to FMIS users will also be a major focus

of the reporting phase of FMIS.

The Reengineer phase will be the final phase of FMIS. Consistent with the strategic initiatives adopted by the Senate, the Disbursing Office intends to implement

the FMIS vision for a secure, paperless, fully integrated financial system complete

with signature authentication, optical scanning, storage and retrieval of documents.

Several financial policy decisions have been made during the implementation that

will have an immediate impact on the financial reporting capabilities of the Senate.

The Disbursing Office has adopted the Standard General Ledger used by the Federal Government. This decision will enable the Senate to prepare standard financial

statements consistent in form and content with other federal agencies. Also adopted

is the object classification for expenditures of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). This decision will enable the categorization of budget authority and expenditure reporting consistently throughout the Senate and consistent with the other federal agencies.

These changes are essential. In addition, however, to replacing non-Y2K systems,

the Disbursing Office has had to replace a conglomeration of stand-alone financial

systems located throughout the Senate. Member Offices currently utilize the

SOAS99 system to prepare vouchers and Committees use the Senate Committee Expense Accounting System (SCEAS). These systems were developed internally by the

Senate to provide offices with a front-end capability to create vouchers and track

individual budgets and they were, for the most part, easy to use. The Disbursing

Office, however, is carrying out the two-fold mandate of the Senate to: Implement

a single financial management system with COTS technology that is Year 2000 compliant; and account for funds on the obligation and accrual basis, with the capability

to produce auditable, consolidated financial statements.

It was therefore necessary for the Senate to move in a new direction.

The successful implementation of FMIS to date has depended on the outstanding

cooperation and dedication of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on

Rules and Administration, the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Sergeant at

Arms, and the Member and Committee offices.
225

Legislative Information System (LIS)

LIS is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 123e) with the objective of providing desktop

access to the content and status of all Senate legislative information and supporting

documents.

One of the early accomplishments in the LIS project was the 1997 implementation

of an Amendment Tracking System (ATS). This system enables the Bill Clerk to

scan floor amendments as received at the desk. Within twenty minutes, Senators

and staff can view the text of an amendment from their personal computers. During

the past year, this system had two major enhancements implemented. These enhancements offer status and statements of purpose when provided by the sponsors

and enable users to perform detailed searches for particular amendments by amendment number, bill number, date introduced, or sponsor. System reliability was improved and a method was implemented for easier printing of the entire amendment

(a frequently requested requirement). During the coming year, the Amendment

Tracking System will be interfaced with the new Document Management System

that is being implemented as a core component of LIS.

An anecdote related by a staffer tells how ATS has proven to be timely, accurate,

and authoritative: The staffer had received a copy of an amendment via fax from

one of the policy groups, but when the staffer printed it from the LIS Amendment

Tracking System, it was clear that the faxed version was already out of date. (On

their way to delivering amendments to the clerks, Senators sometimes make handwritten changes.) ATS provided a timely and accurate scanned photographic reproduction of the amendment copy as the Senator filed it.

Also in 1998, a new Committee Scheduling application was developed and implemented, replacing the old, difficult to use system. The committee scheduling capability enables the Daily Digest Office to better schedule committee and subcommittee meetings and to allow all Senate users to retrieve information about committee meetings and hearings. Reports available from the new system include: Today’s Meetings/Hearings, Scheduled Meetings/Hearings, Member’s Individual Schedules, Specific Committee Schedules and Conflicts, and Combined Schedules for

Members of a Specific Committee. The web-browser implementation provides convenient access from all Senate user PC’s. In the coming year, the Committee Scheduling application will be interfaced with the new Document Management System.

The LIS Document Management System (DMS) development began in August

1998. The DMS is to provide a central repository for all Senate information including legislation and support documentation. The system will collect, manage, store,

retrieve, and report various types of data by providing accessibility, management,

and tracking of information in various formats. The LIS DMS, by transmitting data

to the Library of Congress retrieval system, will serve a wide user base, often with

different, and sometimes unique, sets of requirements: clerks of the Secretary of the

Senate, Senate Library, Senate members and staff, the House of Representatives,

Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Government Printing Office,

and the public. The primary objective of Phase I, initiated in 1998 and to be completed in June, 1999, is to deliver a Year 2000 functional replacement for the existing LEGIS system with the ability to support document attributes, external interfaces, legacy data conversion, and reporting. Phase II, also to be completed in 1999,

is to incorporate textural data and ad hoc reporting in the DMS. Interfaces to the

Senate Amendment Tracking System and the Committee Scheduling System are to

be established.

As the Legislative Information System and Document Management System (LIS/

DMS) are intended to serve varied groups of users, many with unique requirements,

the Office of the Secretary and Senate Office of Education and Training provide LIS

training with the primary objective to prepare Senate staff to test, use, maintain,

and support the LIS/DMS. Training is provided for Senate clerks, system administrators, and end users; since each audience has distinct needs, the training approach

is highly customized. It might be noted here that although every effort is being

made toward a comprehensive training program, many end users have reported that

the LIS is so ‘‘user-friendly’’ and the published materials are so helpful that they

do not feel the need to take time from the job to attend training sessions.

Y2K compliance

The Sergeant at Arms ensures Year 2000 compliance in the Senate. The Office

of the Secretary can report, however, that Y2K compliance is being engineered in

the FMIS and LIS strategic initiatives, and that a Y2K assessment has been made

of all other hardware and software within the Office, with a schedule in place to

complete the timely replacement or upgrade of all non-compliant systems, programs,

and applications.
226

The FMIS project, as noted above, is consolidating and replacing a conglomeration

of stand-alone financial systems located throughout the Senate, none of which was

Year 2000 compliant, with a single financial management system that is warranted

to be Year 2000 compliant. The current FMIS applications presently used in the

Disbursing Office and the Sergeant at Arms consist of two modules, FAMIS and

ADPICS, that the vendor, KPMG, has warranted compliant. Y2K compliance will be

verified in early summer, 1999, through independent testing, e.g, by a non-KPMG

consultant.

Separately, FMIS will ensure that the Senate payroll system is Year 2000 compliant through an upgrade of the existing software supplied by the original vendor.

The upgrade package is the Integral 9.5 version of its package now in use. With

the upgrade package, Integral supplies step-by-step instructions, and the vendor

thoroughly tested the package before released to its customers. Y2K conversion of

the payroll is now in acceptance testing, and will be completed before October 1,

1999.

The LIS project, now composed of the Amendment Tracking, Committee Scheduling, and Document Management systems, will replace the current LEGIS mainframe application in August, 1999. Y2K compliance will be ensured by the system

replacement.

Other Y2K projects now underway in the Office of the Secretary, scheduled for

completion no later than the end of summer, 1999, include the replacement hardware and software for the Office of Printing and Document Services, and the mainframe replacement for the Stationery Room and Gift Shop.

The Office of the Secretary Information Systems Department, in conjunction with

the Sergeant at Arms Y2K Project Office, has assessed Y2K readiness and compliance for all existing hardware and software systems installed in this Office. This

process began in May, 1998, with a detailed assessment by the Mitretek Group of

all computer-related activity. The assessment, completed in December, provides a

detailed risk analysis of the mission critical functions. During this same time frame,

and in parallel with the assessment, all personal computers within the Office were

updated or replaced with compliant hardware. Even more importantly, the outdated

network transfer method of transmitting the text of legislation from the Capitol to

the Government Printing Office was replaced. Legislation is now transferred electronically to GPO via Y2K-compliant gateways.

Further details regarding Y2K compliance within the Office of the Secretary may

be found in the attached annual reports submitted by the departments. Every step

in ensuring Y2K compliance within the Office of the Secretary is taken in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms.

PERSONNEL CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

As discussed in the reports for the last two years, there are positions in the Office

of the Secretary—particularly but not exclusively within the legislative departments—that are essential to the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate, and

that require institutional knowledge and experience to master, but have little comparability to executive-branch or private-sector occupations. Those positions that especially depend on institutional knowledge and experience will always present the

Senate with a major challenge.

The past twelve months have seen the death of the Legislative Clerk, and the actual or announced retirements of the Financial Clerk, the Journal Clerk, the Executive Clerk, the Daily Digest Editor, the Chief Reporter of Debates, and the Director

of the Office of Printing and Document Services.

In all cases, the Office of the Secretary has maintained and will continue to maintain the essential functions that these departments perform. All of these positions

have been filled with highly capable individuals, and there are now no vacancies in

any department head position, nor in any deputy position. This depth is creditable

to the concrete steps taken in past years to identify incumbent employees and prospective new hires who are highly qualified, appropriately experienced, and committed to the Senate for the long term to meet the high professional standards the

Senate requires and to become qualified to assume greater responsibilities.

The Office of the Secretary intends to continue to focus on skill development,

under which highly qualified employees are offered opportunities to learn additional

skills. This focus is to ensure that there are trained resources in every function, that

all of the legislative departments are fully staffed by individuals who have significant on-the-job training and experience, and that the careers of at least two individuals are developed with the potential to succeed to each department head responsibility. Through the development of additional skills, these individuals may come

from within or without the specific departments that they may be asked to head.
227

The above objectives are being accomplished within personnel authorizations. The

Disbursing Office expects soon to add approximately ten new positions to assist in

implementation of FMIS and the restructuring of its functional units that are responsible for financial management, but even with these positions, the Office of the

Secretary will remain below the 241 to 252 positions authorized by this Committee

for fiscal year 1999.

VISION FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

The heroism of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, who died last summer

while preserving the lives of Members, staff and visitors, brought renewed attention

to the need to go forward with the Capitol Visitor Center project to address both

security needs and enhance the educational experience for visitors.

The 105th Congress appropriated $100,000,000 to the Architect of the Capitol for

the planning, engineering, design, and construction of the Capitol Visitor Center.

[Public Law 105–277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.] These funds may not be spent, however, until approved by

the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of both the Senate and

the House. Additionally, these funds, which are available until expended, are to be

supplemented by private fund-raising.

While the Architect of the Capitol is charged with the planning, engineering, design, and construction of the Visitor Center, the Office of the Secretary, in conjunction with the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, has undertaken

responsibility for recommending a plan for the private fund-raising efforts. At the

request of the Majority Leader, I have also offered my assistance to the Architect,

as appropriate, to facilitate and expedite completion of the Visitor Center.

With regard to private fund-raising efforts, the existing Capitol Preservation Fund

has a balance derived from private funds of about $26,600,000, which could be made

available for the Visitor Center project. The Office of the Secretary (along with the

Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives) is currently evaluating the most

appropriate means for raising up to $70,000,000 in additional private funds. Funds

raised over and above the costs of construction and initial furnishing, currently estimated at $159,000,000, could be reserved for long-term maintenance and future educational programs and visitor services.

The Pew Charitable Trusts (which recently took the lead in successfully raising

funds to improve the Independence Mall region in Philadelphia and which has contributed to many projects of major educational and cultural importance) and other

trusts, individuals, and corporations are eager to provide support. Staff of the Secretary and Clerk are also evaluating the need to establish a 501(c)(3) entity to conduct the fund-raising.

For nearly 200 years, the Capitol has stood as the greatest visible symbol of representative democracy in the world. As the workplace of the elected representatives

of the people, the Capitol is—and must remain—a working office building, a museum, and an open tourist center. Since 1859, when the present Senate and House

wings of the Capitol were completed, the Nation has undergone tremendous growth.

With that growth, our citizens visit in increasing numbers each year. The nineteenth-century design does not and cannot accommodate the numbers, either in

terms of providing information about how Congress carries out its constitutional responsibilities, or in terms of meeting modern security requirements, an issue that

the Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol, as members of the Capitol

Police Board, have spoken to in previous hearings before this Committee.

As all know, during peak season, from March through August, visitors face excessively long lines, with little shelter from the Washington summer’s heat and humidity. (The Office of the Attending Physician has reported providing emergency treatment to more than a dozen visitors a week for heat-induced illness.) While it is sufficient to say that entry to the Capitol should not have to be an endurance test, it

is equally apparent that the visit itself must be made more informative and enjoyable. Visitors face congested corridors and a lack of basic facilities such as restrooms

and water fountains. Exhibits are few, and many priceless documents and artifacts

of America’s history are not on public display. Tours are crowded and abbreviated;

during the summer, tours do not see either the Senate or House Chambers. There

is no information center to inform visitors about the Capitol and the history and

constitutional role of Congress, or simply to help visitors find their Member offices,

and there are few suitable rooms for Members to meet with visiting groups of constituents.

With the $100,000,000 appropriation this past year, and a successful $70,000,000

fund-raising campaign, the vision of the Senate for a modern Visitor Center to receive the public, provide accurate and complete information about Congress, and
228

meet security requirements is well within reach. The entire Office of the Secretary

is committed to helping to fulfill this vision and make it a reality sooner.

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

Throughout the trial of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton,

the Office of the Secretary carried out extraordinary responsibilities while maintaining day-to-day services.

In advance of the trial, the Sergeant at Arms and I prepared a memorandum for

the Senate leadership concerning arrangements for the trial.

During the trial, the Legislative Clerks read aloud the texts of matters pending

on the floor, called the roll, and maintained vote tallies, and performed other duties

unique to the trial, such as the logging and storage of evidentiary material. The

Journal Clerk maintained The Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate for the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States as required

by the Constitution and Senate Rules. The impeachment journal will be a vitally

important official resource for the Senate and for legal scholars and historians. The

Parliamentarian advised the Chief Justice and the Senate on the Rules of Procedure

and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials and the Procedure

and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate. The Official

Reporters of Debates kept a stenographic record throughout the trial and prepared

the transcripts for printing in the Congressional Record. By unanimous consent,

Senators were permitted to insert their own closed remarks in the Record, insert

prepared statements, or add additions to closed session remarks, all of which were

processed by the Official Reporters.

The Office of Senate Security provided a secure conference room for conduct of

depositions, and took receipt of all deposition transcripts and videotapes from the

contractors that produced them. Printing and Document Services handled the distribution of the 29 printed volumes of trial materials, containing a total of 15,756

pages. That office had to obtain temporary space provided by the Rules and Administration Committee to store the documents. The office will subsequently, of course,

distribute the full proceedings ordered printed as a Senate Document. The Senate

Historical Office developed an inventory of official records presented to the Senate

in compliance with the impeachment trial rule, and the office will identify for preservation and eventual public access all substantive trial-related records and provide

for their orderly transfer to the National Archives. The Historical Office will also

produce an oral history, based on interviews with the trial’s key participants, and

A Documentary History of United States Senate Impeachment Trials, 1798–1999,

that will present a chronology of key dates, a brief history of the issues that led

to the trial, and the abridged text of key documents for each of the Senate’s seventeen impeachment trials.

The budget summary and apportionment schedule, and the compilation of annual

reports submitted by the Office of the Secretary departments, follow.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET SUMMARY,

APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE, AND DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS

BUDGET SUMMARY

Amount Percent

Fiscal Year 1999:

Payroll Budget ................................................................................................. 13,694,000 90.1

Operating Expense Budget .............................................................................. 1,511,000 9.9

Total ............................................................................................................ 15,205,000 100.0

Suggested Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request:

Payroll Budget ................................................................................................. 14,202,000 90.4

Operating Expense Budget .............................................................................. 1,511,000 9.6

Total ............................................................................................................ 15,713,000 100.0
229

APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE

Item

Amount available fiscal

year 1999

(Public Law

105–275)

Budget estimate fiscal

year 2000

Difference

Executive Office ............................................................................. $718,100 $718,100 ....................

Administrative Services ................................................................. 463,800 463,800 ....................

Legislative and Legal Services ..................................................... 329,100 329,100 ....................

Total ................................................................................. 1,511,000 1,511,000 ....................

DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENTS

BILL CLERK

The Bill Clerk records official actions of the Senate, keeps an authoritative historical record of Senate business, enters daily legislative activities and votes into the

automated legislative status system, and prints all introduced, submitted and reported legislation. In addition, this office assigns numbers to all bills and resolutions.

Legislative Activity

The legislative materials processed by the Bill Clerk during the 105th Congress

are as follows:

Senate Bills ............................................................................................................ 2,655

Senate Joint Resolutions ....................................................................................... 60

Senate Concurrent Resolutions ............................................................................ 130

Senate Resolutions ................................................................................................. 314

Amendments Submitted ........................................................................................ 3,820

House Bills ............................................................................................................. 507

House Joint Resolutions ........................................................................................ 31

House Concurrent Resolutions ............................................................................. 98

Measures Reported ................................................................................................ 621

Roll Call Votes ........................................................................................................ 612

Relations with GPO

The Government Printing Office has responded in a timely manner to the Bill

Clerk’s request for the printing of bills and reports, including the printing of priority

matters for the floor. The record on specific GPO printings for the second session

is summarized below:

—Star Prints: The number of Star Prints (reprints) authorized was 14.

—‘‘Bates List’’: Overnight rush printing was ordered on 29 pieces of legislation.

—At the end of the Second Session, 64 House passed measures were at the desk.

In the past the bill clerk would print these bills as ‘‘Received’’ with the required

quantity for each of 800 copies. The exact language in now available on the web

as a House engrossed bill, so these bills were not printed, resulting in a savings

to the Senate of approximately $51,230.05.

Legislative Information System (LIS)

LEGIS: The office continued working with KPMG and the Senate Computer Center reviewing the legislative information processed by this office, including reviewing vote and some data input screens.

Amendment Scanning: During the second session of the 105th Congress the final

Amendment Tracking System (ATS) was finalized. All Senate staff can view a copy

of all proposed pending amendments of 25 pages or less.

DAILY DIGEST

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

through the Daily Digest, reported on daily, and are published in the Congressional

Record.
230

Chamber Activity

The Senate was in session a total of 143 days, for a total of 1,095 hours and 5

minutes. There were 4 quorum calls and 314 record votes.

Committee Activity

Senate committees held 711 hearings and 172 business meetings (total 883), contrasted with 552 hearings and 184 business meetings (total 736) during the Second

Session of the 104th Congress.

All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and conferences) are

scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily Digest and are published in the

Congressional Record and are entered in the mainframe-based legis system (currently being replaced by a web-based applications system). Meeting outcomes are

also published by the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.

Government Printing Office

The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the end of each

day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The Digest also continues the

practice of sending a disk along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO, even though

GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic transfer long before hand delivery is

completed, adding to the timeliness of publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest continues to discuss with GPO problems encountered with the printing of the

Daily Digest section. Corrections or transcript errors have become very infrequent

due to the ability of electronic transfer.

Staff Changes

The Daily Digest announces the retirement of Thomas G. Pellikaan, Editor, and

the promotion of Linda E. Sebold to the position of Editor.

ENROLLING CLERK

The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all Senate passed

legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the United States Claims Court, and the White

House.

During 1998, 91 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and 11 concurrent

resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared, printed, proofread, corrected,

and printed on parchment.

A total of 521 additional pieces of legislation was passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing from this office.

New computers installed in early 1998 doubled the speed at which bill pages are

composed. The data retrieval system was changed during the year so that the office

can now pull the bill files from the Government Printing Office (GPO) by FTP via

the Internet, and, rather than going through GPO for Legislative Counsel files, the

office can retrieve them directly from the Legislative Counsel computer storage area

with a direct internet connection. This has greatly improved retrieval speed for the

necessary files.

EXECUTIVE CLERK

The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by the Senate

during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and treaties) which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of each session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepares daily the Executive Calendar as well as all nomination and

treaty resolutions for transmittal to the President.

Nominations

During the Second Session of the 105th Congress, there were 648 nomination

messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting 20,225 nominations to

positions requiring Senate confirmation and 27 messages withdrawing nominations

previously sent to the Senate during the session. Of the total nominations transmitted, 336 were for civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast

Guard and Public Health Service. In addition, there were 1,532 nominees in the ‘‘civilian list’’ categories named above. Military nominations received this session totaled 18,443 (6,070 in the Air Force, 5,479 in the Army, 5,047 in the Navy and 1,847

in the Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 20,302 nominations this session and

133 nominations were returned to the President pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXI at the sine die adjournment of the 105th Congress.
231

Treaties

There were 26 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President during the second session of the 105th Congress for its advice and consent to ratification, which

were ordered printed as treaty documents for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc.

105–33 through 105–58).

The Senate gave its advice and consent to 53 treaties with various conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the resolutions of advice and consent to

ratification.

Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes

There were 12 executive reports relating to treaties ordered printed for the use

of the Senate during the second session of the 105th Congress (Executive Reports

105–14 through 105–25). The Senate conducted twenty-nine roll call votes in an executive session, 17 on or in relation to nominations and 12 on amendments to and

final passage of the NATO Accession Treaty.

Executive Communications

In April, the responsibility for executive communications, petitions and memorials

sent to the Senate by the executive branch, state legislatures, local governments,

organizations and/or citizens were placed under the direction of the Executive Clerk.

The growth in the number of these items has increased exponentially, requiring the

addition of a full-time clerk to process them. Due to the reporting of a vacancy requirement of Public Law 105–77, the number of communications for the 106th and

future Congresses will continue to increase dramatically. From April through the

end of the Second Session, 3,125 or 41 percent of all executive communications received during the 105th Congress, and 182 petitions and memorials were processed

by the new clerk. Also during this period, the writing of the abstracts for the Congressional Record was adapted and improved to better serve the needs of the agencies, GAO, and the National Archives.

Development of the new LIS

The staff has consulted regularly with KPMG and the Senate Computer Center

concerning the development of the portion of the new LIS pertaining to the processing of nominations and treaties. In addition, staff have been meeting regularly

with the CRS staff at the Library of Congress charged with developing the retrieval

system for the new LIS database, and have spent many hours explaining the processing procedures of the nominations and treaties in the Senate to help them develop the best possible systems for in put and retrieval.

Staff Changes

The Executive Clerk’s Office announces the retirement of David G. Marcos as Executive Clerk and the promotion of Michelle Haynes to that position.

JOURNAL CLERK

The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings of the Senate

in the ‘‘Minute Book’’ and prepares a history of bills and resolutions for the printed

Senate Journal that is in effect the index of legislative action. The Senate Journal

is published each calendar year.

The office is responsible, pursuant to its constitutional duties and under the provisions of the Senate rules, to produce The Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate

for the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States,

in addition to the regular Senate Journal, for this year of 1999.

The 1998 volume will go to the Government Printing Office for distribution in the

spring of this year. The completion of the 1998 Journal will not affect the progress

of the two Journals for 1999.

Staff Changes

The Journal Clerk’s Office announces the retirement of William D. Lackey, Jr.,

as Journal Clerk and the promotion of Patrick Keating to that position.

LEGISLATIVE CLERK

The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary’s desk in the Senate Chamber and

reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal, Presidential messages, and

other such materials when so directed by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. The

Legislative Clerk calls the roll of members to establish the presence of a quorum

and to record and tally all yea and nay votes. This office prepares the Senate Calendar of Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and prepares

additional publications relating to Senate class membership and committee and sub-
232

committee assignments. The Legislative Clerk maintains the official copy of all

measures pending before the Senate and must incorporate into those measures any

amendments that are agreed to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by

the Senate. This office is also responsible for verifying the accuracy of that information entered into the LEGIS system by the various offices of the Secretary. In addition, this office is very involved in the Secretary’s multi-year, comprehensive program to redesign and rebuild the Senate’s system for the collection and management

of its Legislative Information Services (LIS).

Summary of Activity

The Second Session of the 105th Congress completed its legislative business and

adjourned on October 21, 1998. During 1998, the Senate was in session for 1,095

hours over 143 days and conducted 314 roll call votes. There were 363 measures

reported from committees, 506 total measures passed, and there were 246 items remaining on the Calendar at the time of adjournment. In addition, there were 2,180

amendments submitted.

Legislative Information System (LIS)

When LIS replaces the current LEGIS system, extensive training and retraining

will be required to convert from the current mainframe to a document management

system (DMS). As staff become more familiar with the new capabilities LIS will provide, there may be added benefits such as a history of legislation in the Calendar

of Business, which could then be included in the Journal at the end of each session.

Amendment Scanning

In 1997, the Secretary’s office began scanning certain pending amendments to

Senate offices. The main concern was, and continues to be, that there be little or

no disruption in the way an amendment is processed and distributed on the Senate

floor. In 1998, the office implemented improvements to the amendment scanning

system which resulted in faster scanning to a wider audience and reduced keyboarding by the Bill Clerks. Undoubtedly, this project will need to undergo further

enhancements as the LIS project progresses.

Staff Changes

The Senate tragically lost R. Scott Bates (1948–1999) on February 5, 1999. David

Tinsley was promoted to the position of Legislative Clerk.

OFFICE OF OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the proceedings of the Senate, and

serve as liaison for all Senate personnel on matters relating to the content of the

Record. The transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are

transmitted, in hard copy and electronically, throughout the day to the Government

Printing Office. The Chief Reporter functions as editor in chief and the Coordinator

functions as technical production editor of the Senate portion of the Record.

Accomplishments

The Official Reporters continue to use the computer-aided transcription system,

and have experimented with new software throughout the year. As noted in previous reports, the workload of this office has not decreased but, by providing GPO

electronic as well as paper copy, the overall workload at GPO (i.e., not having to

rekey every word this office transmits to them) is reduced and, as a result, the overall production cost of the Record.

Morning Business

The Morning Business Unit has dealt effectively with a marked increase of items

being processed through their office. The number of communications has continued

to increase since the passage of Public Law 104–121 (the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996).

Goals

The goals for the coming year include: increasing the volume of electronic submissions to GPO by continually informing and educating staff of the e-mail process and

the proper format and deadlines for submitting statements; adapting the new LIS

system to daily operation; continuing to cross-train transcribers in the tasks performed by the Coordinator; and and experimenting with new software for the Reporters.
233

Cost Savings

The office continues to save substantial sums by eliminating duplication in printing, and Senators are consistently informed about the two-page rule.

PARLIAMENTARIAN

The Parliamentarian advises the Chair, Senators and their staff as well as committee staff, House members and their staffs, administration officials, the media

and members of the general public on all matters requiring an interpretation of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent

agreements, as well as provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate. The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral of all legislation

introduced in the Senate, all legislation received from the House, as well as all communications received from the executive branch. The office worked extensively with

Senators and their staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of proposed modifications in drafting.

The office continues to analyze and advise Senators on a great number of issues

arising under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Byrd Rule on extraneous

matter in reconciliation bills can cause a great deal of parliamentary maneuvering.

The atmosphere that surrounded the parliamentary process in 1998 resulted in

an unprecedented number of questions that this office was asked to resolve. These

questions often required hours of very difficult and contentious meetings with competing groups of staff. At every stage of the budget cycle, this office was called upon

to arbitrate large numbers of budget and appropriation related questions. The Parliamentarian’s Office was constantly asked to answer questions during consideration

on the Senate floor, of the budget resolution and the appropriations bill that followed.

Concerns about the use of the budget surplus promises to keep the congressional

budget process (with all of its parliamentary complexity) in the forefront of the legislative agenda.

PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICES

Printing and Document Services documents Senate printing expenses and functions as GPO liaison to schedule and/or distribute Senate bills and reports to the

Chamber, Senate staff, and the public; provides page counts of Senate hearings to

commercial reporting companies, orders and tracks all paper and envelopes provided

the Senate, provides general printing services for Senate offices, and assures that

Senate printing is in compliance with Title 44, U.S. Code, as it relates to Senate

documents, hearings, committee prints, and other official publications.

Total Publications

During the second session of the 105th Congress, 647 publications (hearings, committee prints, Senate documents, Senate Publications) were printed. This compares

with 504 publications printed during the second session of the 104th Congress, or

an increase of about 28 percent.

Hearings Transcripts and Billing Verifications

Billing Verifications are the vehicle by which reporting companies request payment from a committee for their transcription services. During 1998, commercial reporting companies and the corresponding Senate committees were provided a total

of 919 billing verifications of Senate hearings and business meetings (including

hearings which were canceled or postponed, but still requiring payment to the reporting company). This averages 38 hearings/meetings per committee. Compared

with 1,105 billing verifications in 1997, there was a decrease of about 17 percent

in the number of hearings processed.

Commercial reporting companies charged the Senate approximately $447,268 to

prepare 69,855 transcript pages of the spoken portions of Senate hearings (compared to 1997 figures of $585,956 to prepare 89,020 transcribed pages) for an average annual cost of about $18,636 per committee, and an average of 2,910 spoken

transcript pages per committee during 1998. In 1997, the average annual cost per

committee was $29,903, and an average of 4,239 spoken transcript pages.

1997 1998 Percent Increase/

Decrease

Billing Verifications ........................................................... 1,105 919 ¥17

Transcribed Pages ............................................................. 89,020 69,855 ¥22
234

1997 1998 Percent Increase/

Decrease

Average Pages/Committee ................................................. 4,239 2,910 ¥31

Transcribed Pages Cost .................................................... $585,956 $447,268 ¥24

Average Cost/Committee ................................................... $29,903 $18,636 ¥38

Requisitions

Printing and Document Services prepared 5,564 printing requisitions during fiscal

year 1998, authorizing GPO to print Senate work, exclusive of legislation and the

Record. This is a decrease of about 6 percent over fiscal year 1997.

Paper, Letterhead, and Envelopes

Printing and Document Services provides and maintains an accounting of blank

paper, letterheads, and envelopes for all Senate offices. The total blank sheets and

letterheads ordered in 1998 were about 99.2 million sheets, a decrease of 3.3 million

sheets compared to 1997. In 1998, the Senate used about 8.4 million envelopes, compared to 7.9 million in 1997.

Mini Document Room

Printing and Document Services serves the combined leadership by coordinating

the distribution of all Senate-introduced and Calendar bills, reports, resolutions, and

conference reports, including all legislation which has passed the House. Distribution is made to the Chamber, the Office of the Secretary, and leadership offices.

Data entry to the legislation and DocuTech databases is the responsibility of this

section.

Cost Accounting Projects and Duties

In addition to the ability to advise offices about turnaround and the method of

reproduction, while assuring compliance with Title 44 U.S.C., Printing and Document Services also provides accounting information needed by offices. Ultimately,

this data enables the Secretary to provide oversight information to the Rules Committee and the Joint Committee on Printing.

The Service Center

The Service Center (located in SH–B–07) is staffed by experienced GPO printing

specialists who provide Senate committees and the Office of the Secretary with complete publishing services for hearings, committee prints, and preparation of the Congressional Record. Services include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and composition.

As a result of these services, committees have been able to decrease and/or eliminate overtime costs associated with the preparation of hearings, and can now publish in a more timely manner. Committees may also realize additional savings because the work done in the Service Center is chargeable to the committee as performed (as opposed to having a full-time staff member or detailee assigned to printing functions). Finally, by providing the ability to process what would otherwise be

backlogged work, utilization of the Service Center may preclude the need to assign

additional staff or GPO detailees to publishing duties.

During 1998, the Service Center assisted 14 committees with the preparation of

138 hearings, committee prints, and Senate Documents including the tributes to

Senators Ford, Bumpers, Kempthorne, Glenn, and Coats. This represents over half

of all Senate committees which have printing responsibilities. Looked at from another perspective, the Service Center has assisted with about 21 percent of the publications printed in 1998.

Congressional Record

In 1998, 12,730 pages were printed for the Senate, 14,622 pages were printed for

the House (includes Digest, Extension of Remarks, Proceedings, and Miscellaneous

pages), for a total of 27,975 pages. This is a total of 683 more pages than in 1997.

There were a total of 1.4 million copies printed and distributed in 1998. That includes 295,323 to the Senate, 241,945 to the House, and 827,732 to Executive

Branch agencies and the public at large.

Total approximate cost to produce the Record was $14 million. Based upon the

per cent of content and distribution quantities, the proportional Senate cost was

$6.3 million, the House was $6.9 million, and all other recipients $800,000. Per copy

cost was about $8.86 (Record costs are based upon GPO estimated appropriation

costs, not including costs to produce the Record Index or microfiche copies).
235

Legislation

Data is captured regarding all printed versions of all measures considered in the

Senate. Beginning this Congress, all versions and distribution of House measures

are included. For brevity, the following information is summarized by major category of legislation, such as Senate bills. Each category includes the successive

versions in which all measures were printed during their legislative cycle (such as

a Senate bill which is introduced, reported, and printed as passed), including star

prints. Information relating to specific versions of all legislation is available, as is

the additional number of copies ordered printed for the Document Room (see

Docutech Project) and committees.

The following table is for the second session of the 105th Congress. The Number

of Pages column refers to the number of original pages, including blanks, within the

categories listed. The total number of printed pages is not shown, but is available.

Costs are rounded to the nearest hundred, and are based upon estimated GPO appropriation rates.

Measure Count Number

of Pages Senate Cost Total Cost

Senate Bills .............................................................. 1,448 30,334 1.900,000 2,800,000

Senate Reports ......................................................... 256 10,186 736,100 933,100

Sen. Res .................................................................... 200 556 42,200 58,200

S.J. Res ..................................................................... 34 148 10,100 15,000

S.Con. Res ................................................................ 89 376 22,800 37,600

House Bills ................................................................ 2,312 39,947 1,500,000 6,100,000

H. J. Res ................................................................... 50 152 4,250 16,300

H. Con. Res ............................................................... 209 736 19,600 76,500

H. Conf. Reports and Reports .................................. 436 26,884 437,300 2,500,000

Treaties/Exec ............................................................. 40 2,007 179,300 183,700

Public Laws .............................................................. 151 2,674 347,400 380,300

Totals ........................................................... 5,225 114,000 5,200,000 13,100,000

Document Services

The Document Services section coordinates requests for printed legislation and

miscellaneous publications with other departments within the Office of the Secretary, Senate committees, and the Government Printing Office, to ensure the most

current version of all material is available, and that sufficient quantities are in storage to meet projected demand.

The primary responsibility of this section is to provide services to the Senate.

However, the responsibility to the general public, the press, and other government

agencies is virtually indistinguishable from services provided to the Senate. Requests for material are received at the walk-in counter, through the mail, by FAX,

and recorded messages. Recorded messages and FAX messages operate twenty-four

hours a day, and are filled the same day they are received, as are mail requests.

Summary of Annual Statistics

The following chart is a summary of activities and trends in Document Services

from 1988 through 1998.

Calendar year/Congress/session Calls

received Public mail Staff phone Fax request Counterrequests

1988: 100/2ND ....................................... 107,871 20,579 79,163 N/A N/A

1989: 101/1ST ....................................... 114,580 24,415 85,488 N/A N/A

1990: 101/2ND ....................................... 154,497 23,322 96,330 N/A N/A

1991: 102/1ST ....................................... 158,714 29,301 94,503 N/A N/A

1992: 102/2ND ....................................... 144,478 21,634 64,543 N/A N/A

1993: 103/1ST ....................................... 135,035 23,679 64,752 N/A N/A

1994: 103/2ND ....................................... 128,463 20,460 54,919 4,934 N/A

1995: 104/1ST ....................................... 134,062 22,704 45,466 10,182 N/A

1996: 104/2ND ....................................... 110,742 15,140 35,479 8,043 N/A

1997: 105/1ST ....................................... 60,296 12,739 23,672 7,261 N/A
236

Calendar year/Congress/session Calls

received Public mail Staff phone Fax request Counterrequests

1998: 105/2ND ....................................... 35,116 8,131 13,850 5,162 113,862

Docutech Project

The following tables summarize quantities and costs associated with on-demand

(supplemental) printing of bills and reports during the first and second sessions of

the 105th Congress. The first table compares on-site printing requests. The second

table indicates work printed for other government agencies by GPO in order to more

fully employ the machine. Costs are based upon a charge of two cents per page.

Count Run

Length

Original

Pages Printed Pages Cost Each Total Cost

Document Services:

1997:

Totals ........................... 946 31,593 45,832 2,100,000 $1.33 $41,995

Daily Averages ............. 4.4 146 212.2 9,712 N/A $194.43

1998:

Total ............................ 42 3 23,904 25,442 1,700,000 $1.4 2 $33,959

Daily Averages ............. 3.6 142 187.7 9,786 N/A $195.86

Agencies 1998:

Totals .................................... 747 379,986 92,941 7,500,000 .28 150,079

Daily Averages ...................... 2.5 1,267 309.8 25,008 N/A $500.26

Staff Changes

The Office of Printing and Document Services announces the retirement of Barry

J. Wolk as Director and the appointment of Linda Daniels to that position.

OFFICE OF CAPTIONING SERVICES

The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captioning of Senate Floor

proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and unofficial electronic transcripts of

Senate Floor proceedings to Senate offices via the Senate Intranet.

General Overview

Caption quality continues to be the number one priority. Peer reviews are conducted on a weekly basis. The office average for accuracy was down slightly for 1998

because of changes to the error scoring methodology.

The Senate Library and the Internet provide reference information. The office library was updated with current-year volumes of select reference materials. House

and Senate Internet and House and Senate public web sites are a great assistance.

Technology Update

Year 2000 Compliance (Y2K) concerns of the Secretary of the Senate were addressed beginning early in 1998. In July of 1998 the office was able to demonstrate

Y2K Compliance by operating all systems on-air during broadcast as if it were July

of 2001. This one-day demonstration was preceded by months of testing, upgrading

hardware, evaluating software, monitoring file creation and manipulation, and getting a written ‘‘Y2K Compliant’’ confirmation from the system vendors.

The Senate Recording Studio continues to refine a system to capture the caption

data stream, time stamps the captions and stores them in a searchable database.

The text files in the database are linked to audio and video files which can be subsequently played on personal computers. Additional improvements to this service are

anticipated during 1999.

1999 Objective

The technology currently used for real-time captioning is not Microsoft Windows

compatible. The office is evaluating a Windows-based Computer-Aided Transcription

and Captioning system which is Y2K compliant.

The testing, evaluation and integration of this new technology into the office is

incorporated in individual goals and objectives for 1999. It is hoped this updated

technology will be online in late 1999, in time for the Second Session of the 106th

Congress.
237

SPECIAL PROJECTS—LIS

The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 123e)

with the objective of providing desktop access to the content and status of all Senate

legislative information and supporting documents. The Special Projects office manages the project, oversees the Senate’s outside contractor, KPMG Peat Marwick, and

coordinates LIS training for Senate users.

One of the early accomplishments in the LIS project was the 1997 implementation

of an Amendment Tracking System (ATS). This system enables the Bill Clerk to

scan floor amendments as they are received at the desk. Within twenty minutes,

Senators and staff can view the text of an amendment from their personal computers. During the past year, this system had two major enhancements implemented. These enhancements offer status and statements of purpose when provided

by the sponsors and enable users to perform detailed searches for particular amendments by amendment number, bill number, date introduced, or sponsor. System reliability was improved and a method was implemented for easier printing of the entire amendment (a frequently requested requirement). During the coming year, the

Amendment Tracking System will be interfaced with the new Document Management System that is being implemented as a core component of LIS.

An anecdote related by a staffer tells how ATS has proven to be timely, accurate,

and authoritative: The staffer had received a copy of an amendment via fax from

one of the policy groups, but when the staffer printed it from the LIS Amendment

Tracking System, it was clear that the faxed version was already out of date. (On

their way to delivering amendments to the clerks, Senators sometimes make handwritten changes.) ATS provided a scanned photographic reproduction of the amendment copy as the Senator filed it.

This last year, the focus of the LIS was on analyzing and reviewing systems requirements, on the review of related projects and initiatives at the Senate and other

agencies, and on gathering information integral to the implementation of the LIS.

Considerable progress was made in 1998 toward the goal of producing bills and resolutions using the Standard General Mark-up Language (SGML). At the direction

of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration, the Secretary and the Clerk are developing a common standard for document exchange. SGML, widely used for commercial publishing, is the standard

being developed for exchanging legislative information.

The Secretary and Clerk held two document analysis workshops in 1998 with representatives from the Senate, House, and legislative branch agencies in attendance.

The first workshop was held to define the structure of bills and resolutions, the first

step in the development of the Bill Document Type Definition (DTD). Using the

findings from the workshop, Mulberry Technologies completed the Bill DTD in July

1998. The second workshop was held in late 1998 to identify the structure of conference reports and to begin the conference report DTD development process. The

contractor completed the analysis of the workshop and the Senate and House Data

Managers are reviewing it.

Concurrent with the DTD development process, the Secretary’s Office, supported

by KPMG, completed an evaluation of SGML Editing Environments that could be

deployed in the Senate for the creation of SGML documents. The results of that

evaluation may be further analyzed in conjunction with the House before a decision

on SGML editors is finalized.

Efforts for the current year will focus on determining implementation strategies.

Through participation in the Legislative SGML Coordinating Committee and the

Legislative SGML Technical Committee, this Office continues to work closely with

the House of Representatives to ensure that LIS is compatible with the House information systems for purposes of data exchange.

Also in 1998, a new Committee Scheduling application was developed and implemented, replacing the old, difficult to use system. The committee scheduling capability enables the Daily Digest Office to better schedule committee and subcommittee meetings and to allow all Senate users to retrieve information about committee meetings and hearings. Reports available from the new system include: Today’s Meetings/Hearings, Scheduled Meetings/Hearings, Member’s Individual Schedules, Specific Committee Schedules and Conflicts, and Combined Schedules for

Members of a Specific Committee. The web-browser implementation provides convenient access from all Senate user PC’s. In the coming year, the Committee Scheduling application will be interfaced with the new Document Management System.

The LIS Document Management System (DMS) development began in August

1998. The DMS is to provide a central repository for all Senate information including legislation and support documentation. The system will collect, manage, store,

retrieve, and report various types of data by providing accessibility, management,
238

and tracking of information in various formats. The LIS DMS, by transmitting data

to the Library of Congress retrieval system, will serve a wide user base, often with

different, and sometimes unique, sets of requirements: clerks of the Secretary of the

Senate, Senate Library, Senate members and staff, legislative branch agencies—

House, CRS, and LOC, Government Printing Office, and the public. The primary objective of Phase I, initiated in 1998 and to be completed in June, 1999, is to deliver

a Year 2000 functional replacement for the existing LEGIS system with the ability

to support document attributes, external interfaces, legacy data conversion, and reporting. Phase II, also to be completed in 1999, is to incorporate textural data and

ad hoc reporting in the DMS. Interfaces to the Senate Amendment Tracking System

and the Committee Scheduling System are to be established.

For 1999, the strategic focus of LIS development must be on becoming Year 2000

compliant. The decision to develop the DMS system to replace the existing LEGIS

was made; therefore, the DMS production release must take place as scheduled to

allow adequate time for thorough system testing in a production environment and

to allow sufficient time for end to end testing with external system interfaces.

The LIS Project management meets weekly at Project Office and Project Managers meetings and performs the coordination and integration of LIS projects. To

ensure user inputs into the LIS, Project management meets regularly with House

and Senate user groups.

LIS Communications

While the LIS project is well under way, and large portions of the system have

been successfully introduced to users throughout the Senate, LIS is still a work in

progress. The announcement and promotion of change activities associated with LIS

must be carefully organized. It is not only critical that changes to the system be

announced quickly and effectively, but also that the appropriate messenger and

communications vehicle be identified well in advance. The LIS communications plan

attempts to address these issues by pinpointing the LIS systems that will be enhanced during the second and third years of LIS implementation and outlining a

clear and concise means of communicating necessary information to key users. Two

key components of the communications plan are the establishment of the LIS User

Group and the production of informational materials and marketing tools.

The LIS User Group collects requirements and priorities of Senate offices to ensure that enhancements to LIS meet the needs of as broad a range of Senate researchers as possible. This group will also be used as a test group to provide feedback on enhancements to the system before they are introduced to the Senate as

a whole. The requirements and feedback provided by this User Group will be recorded and factored into decisions the Project Plan proceeds.

The Project Office is seeking the active involvement of a broad spectrum of Senate

staff (Legislative Directors, Legislative Assistants, Press Secretaries, and Systems

Administrators) to make a commitment to participate in this LIS User Group

through the completion of LIS implementation.

LIS informational materials and marketing tools are designed to ensure that Senate staff know what resources are available. These materials are continually updated and distributed to a wide range of staffers throughout the Senate. The Office

of the Secretary has already developed several ‘‘Quick Cards’’ to provide users with

key information on how to use the Amendment Tracking, Committee and Subcommittee Scheduling and the Roll Call Vote Tracking systems.

These cards have proven to be effective tools and, though they will need to be continually updated, will remain in circulation. As enhancements are made to the system, the need to create additional ‘‘Quick Cards’’ may also become apparent.

LIS Training

The Legislative Information System and Document Management System (LIS/

DMS) are intended to serve varied groups of users, many with unique requirements.

The primary objective of LIS training is to prepare Senate staff to test, use, maintain, and support the LIS/DMS.

Following establishment of the Senate Office of Education and Training and recruitment of an LIS trainer, an instructional needs analysis was completed in October, 1998. Several audiences were identified for LIS/DMS training: Senate clerks,

system administrators, including Secretary of the Senate Information Systems/Computer staff as well as Sergeant at Arms application development personnel, Help

Desk personnel, Enterprise IT personnel, and end users. A training plan submitted

in November, 1998, summarized the instructional analysis, described instructional

methods and training resources, and outlined the training curriculum for each audience. In addition, the training plan included recommendations for vendor-supplied
239

technical training for developers and those involved in supporting and maintaining

the LIS/DMS.

Since each audience has distinct needs, the training approach is highly customized. The curriculum includes labs and practical exercises to reinforce skills and

the use of realistic scenarios to enable authentic assessment. Reference materials

and other resources are being prepared to assist staff after training has occurred.

Two training guides, one for system administrators and another for the Senate

clerks, will be available for reference. The training team is also developing on-line

help for the LIS/DMS. While the training guides and training sessions are geared

toward roles, the on-line help focuses of specific system functions and screens.

The initial training session for Senate clerks is scheduled for March, 1999, and

is to prepare the clerks for their role in user unit and system testing. A second

training session is scheduled in May, 1999, to prepare for User Acceptance testing

and system production. This session will cover any system changes implemented

after user testing and serve as a refresher course before actual production begins.

Each session contains two components, one for common system functions and a second customized component for each office, focusing on office-specific tasks relating

to the LIS/DMS. During the initial production period, onsite help will be provided

by the LIS trainer in the Office of Education and Training to help ease the transition from LEGIS to the LIS/DMS.

Training for the system administrator group is scheduled for May, 1999. Each

group involved in the technical administration of the LIS/DMS will participate in

the training modules appropriate for the responsibilities they will assume with the

new system.

End user training is currently offered once a month to Members and member office staff through the Office of Education and Training. This class is based on the

LIS website on www.congress.gov. Modifications to the existing LIS user interface

will be incorporated into future classes.

It might be noted here that although every effort is being made toward a comprehensive training program, many end users have reported that the LIS is so

‘‘user-friendly’’ and the published materials are so helpful that they do not feel the

need to take time from the job to attend training sessions.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

DISBURSING OFFICE

FRONT COUNTER—ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate business and

financial activity. It is the receiving point for most incoming expense vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is the initial verification point

to ensure that paperwork received in the Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations, and statutes.

The Front Counter is the first line of service provided to Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees (permanent and temporary) who will

be working in the Capitol Hill Senate offices are administered the required oath of

office and personnel affidavit and provided verbal and written detailed information

regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and state employees for issuance of their Senate I.D. card. Cash advances are issued to Senate staff

authorized for official Senate travel and travelers’ checks are available for a nonprofit basis to assist the traveler. Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging

from pay, benefits, taxes, laws, and Senate regulations in our commitment to provide the highest degree of customer service. Senate entities, in the course of official

duties, receive cash and checks as part of their daily business. These funds are submitted through the front counter, become part of the accountability of the Senate

for federally appropriated funds, and are processed through the general ledger system.

General Activities

The Front Counter: Issued approximately 1,500 cash advances for official Senate

travel; received more than 18,000 checks from Senate entities; administered oath

and personnel affidavits to more than 3,500 new Senate staff; and maintained brochures for 18 Federal health carriers and distributed approximately 4,000 brochures

to staff during the annual FEHB open season.

CENTRAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

During 1998, the Senate Disbursing Office initiated a plan to merge the functions

and responsibilities of the Payroll Section and Employee Benefits Section into one
240

department that supports the central human resource needs of the Senate. The Central Human Resource Administration (HR) is to maintain and administer payroll

processing, retirement, health insurance, life insurance, and other central human

resource programs to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and employees on a non-biased and confidential basis.

The Senate’s internal organizational structure is decentralized among 160 offices.

Each of these offices are separate accounting locations and are the statutory appointing authority of their staff as well as the certifying officer to obligate funds.

Flexibility to manage human resources at the distributed location best serves the

Senate. Office specific and personal employee data not required for payroll purposes

is maintained at the distributed office level.

The Disbursing Office staff in these sections are experienced in their respective

fields and have extensive background knowledge of the other sections involved. To

best utilize their skills for the Senate’s benefit, and in order to provide a stimulating

work environment for staff, cross training the staff and rotating them on a monthly

basis between functions, was determined to be the best direction. After training is

finished, the Disbursing Office will be able to provide eleven central HR counselors

who will have comprehensive knowledge of all areas related to payroll, retirement,

life and health insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), social security, employment verification and investigation, and other central HR related benefits.

PAYROLL SECTION

The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System and is

responsible for the following: processing, verifying, and warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office by Senators for their personal staff,

by Chairmen for their committee staff, and by other elected officials for their staff;

issuing salary payments to the above employees; maintaining the Automated Clearing House (ACH) FEDLINE facilities for the normal transmittal of payroll deposits

to the Federal Reserve; distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports to the individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency

contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting the proper

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National Finance Center (NFC), while

maintaining earnings records for distribution to the Social Security Administration,

and maintaining taxable earnings records of employees for W–2 statements, which

are prepared by this section. The Payroll Section is also responsible for the payroll

portion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.

General Activities

Calendar Year 1998 started out with the processing of more than 800 Federal Employees’ Health Benefits (FEHB) forms, along with 600 Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)

open season forms, and just over 4,000 cost-of-living increases, all of which became

effective on January 1, 1998. The second open season for TSP produced an additional 600 forms that became effective July 1, 1998.

The U. S. Capitol Police (USCP) transferred from the Senate to the National Finance Center (NFC) payroll system March 1, 1998. Although nearly 700 officers

were transferred off the Senate Payroll/Personnel system, two months of salary

records were maintained on the Payroll/Personnel system to issue W–2’s for Calendar Year 1998. The members of the USCP payroll personnel team have remained

in close contact with the Disbursing Office for guidance on operational procedures.

It should be noted that the reporting of salaries and positions of their Officers and

employees are still being reported in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.

The Payroll Section worked with the Human Resources Division of the Sergeant

at Arms to restructure and reorganize the employees under their jurisdiction. The

new structure provided better methods for monitoring employee costs within their

jurisdiction. When the format was completed, the Payroll Section provided the Sergeant at Arms with a data information file that greatly helped the movement of employees within the Payroll/Personnel system. The new structure became effective

June 1, 1998.

The annual Integral Conference was held in San Diego, California in August. The

Conference was used to study and review the upgrade to the 9.5 system. Special attention was paid to organizations using both 9.5 and the OS/390 system to produce

payrolls. It was noted that organizations who had not chosen to upgrade to the 9.2

or 9.3 systems were now upgrading to Integral’s 9.5 system because of its superior

Y2K concept. It was noted that organizations that had chosen the Client/Server as

a processing system were again reviewing mainframe operations to regain

functionality and increase processing speed. Both concepts are limited by the Client/

Server systems. The Integral Conference for 1999 will be held August 22–25, 1999

in New Orleans, Louisiana.
241

During the summer, the Payroll Section made use of interns to microfilm payroll

check registers for the period January 1, 1990–December 31, 1995. As a result of

this project, we removed 50 boxes of paper from the office and valuable payment

records were permanently stored on microfilm.

The Section has been working with the members for the FAMIS project to create

a cost accounting structure for the payrolls. Over 900 new department/location numbers were created in the system to be able to report at a lower level within an office

to more accurately allocate costs of the offices. An extract of payroll cost was created

to automatically post payroll information into FAMIS. Payroll supplied the system

accountants with office expenditure reports to assist in the verification of system totals.

Year 2K Project Activities

The Year 2000 Project for the conversion of the Payroll/Personnel system has progressed to the acceptance testing stage. On March 1, 1999, the Information Technology Department of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms released the Integral 9.5

version of the program to the Human Resources Division of the Disbursing Office

for review and extensive acceptance testing.

The Y2K upgrade of the Payroll/Personnel system acceptance testing was scheduled to occur after 1998 year-end work for payroll reporting was completed and after

the massive amount of payroll actions generated by a new Congress was completed.

It was also decided, in order to mitigate risk, that the Y2K payroll project not coincide with the higher profile and significantly greater effort underway with the Financial Management Information System (FMIS) mandate. The program plan further provided for up to six months of acceptance testing and parallel processing with

final implementation to occur no later than October 1, 1999.

The Payroll/Personnel project to update the current system began in April of

1997. The first phase of the project required the members of the programming team

to begin to convert the Senate specific files to a Y2K compliant format. There are

two Senate specific (built in-house) systems. The Office Allowance system, which

controls payroll expense distribution, and the History DataBase system, which

maintains employees’ service and retirement histories. Both segments of this phase

of the project were completed by February 1998.

The second phase of the project was to install Integral’s Y2K compliant version

of the Payroll/Personnel system. Integral expanded its programming format to both

accommodate converting the six-digit dating system to an eight-digit dating system,

and allow for future expansions and upgrades of its system. In the upgrade package,

Integral supplies step by step instructions and the system’s programming has been

thoroughly beta tested before being released to its customers. The Senate has always made it a practice to install a product only after other customers have used

it for at least six months and have some of the bugs worked out. Once the program

was installed and verified, consultants and Senate programmers began to convert

9.3 Integral files and retrofit Senate modifications. By following a strict upgrade

schedule, the programmers involved completed their conversion by December 31,

1998. At this point the IT team converted the online employee data and ran a trial

payroll. Finally a comparison of the two systems was made, and in every case the

payroll data matched dollar for dollar.

The final phase of acceptance testing begins in March 1999, checking the operating functionality and input load testing. The Disbursing Office team in charge of

testing has been involved in almost a dozen conversions and two major implementation projects, and are experts in both the Integral and Senate programs. Once completed, both the 9.3 and 9.5 systems will be parallel tested for certification of accuracy. The Disbursing Office is confident that the Y2K 9.5 version of the Payroll/Personnel system will be operational on or before the October 1, 1999 deadline. The

OS/390 processing system will provide the needed Y2K compatible production system.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECTION

The Employee Benefits Section (EBS) primary responsibilities are administration

of Senate employees’ health and life insurance and retirement programs for the Senate. The Section’s work includes research and verification of prior Senate or other

federal service for new appointees. EBS prepares these forms for payroll input and

after they are returned, verifies the accuracy of the information when the Official

Personnel Folder is received. Employment verifications for loans, the Bar, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, and for outside insurance

are completed in EBS. Unemployment claim forms are completed, and employees

are counseled. Department of Labor billings for unemployment paid to Senate employees are checked in EBS and submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section to
242

be paid. Designations of Beneficiaries for FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and for unpaid compensation are filed and checked by EBS.

General Activities

The annual FEHB Open Season was held, with over 800 employees changing

plans. A great number of FEHB plans changed and the changes had to be updated

manually.

The FEHB Open Season Health Fair was attended by about 900 employees, a

great showing. Because the Fair is so well run and there have been many requests

of this sort, it was opened it to all employees on the Hill, including House and Architect employees.

There again were 2 TSP Open Seasons, and the employee changes remained about

the same as normal, 1 in 7.

Mortgage rates, still being low, kept employment verifications coming in at a

rapid pace, averaging 140 per month.

Seminars were held for the 8 outgoing Members’ staffs, as well as for Committees

facing reorganization. Information disseminated included retirement, health and life

insurance, and unemployment.

Counseling, retirement planning, and processing were normal in 1998. Since most

of the Members leaving were long term Members who were retiring, the retirement

caseload for early 1999 will be heavy, and so counseling in advance during 1998 was

heavy. Total retirement cases processed equaled 87 (47 CSRS ∂ 40 FERS).

The annual Integral Conference was held in San Diego, California in August.

Staff used the Conference to review the 9.5 upgrade for the Payroll/Personnel system, and to finalize Y2K planning and strategies to meet deadlines. This Conference

emphasized that the Client/Server movement was shifting BACK to mainframes

such as the OS/390 and introduced new products to work with this smaller mainframe. They demonstrated that they will continue to support mainframe products,

since a number of companies have tried Client/Server and concluded mainframe or

minicomputers would better serve where large amounts on online memory were a

necessity as it is in the Senate. This was very helpful as the Sergeant at Arms has

now purchased and is installing a new OS/390 system.

The Payroll and Benefits Sections’ Supervisors attend Integral User’s Conferences

annually, and each Conference consists of working sessions (usually 9 to 10 in 3

days) with topics ranging from problems found by other users during implementations/migrations, to visions of future enhancements of the systems.

Work was finished on the 9.5 release plans of the Integral Payroll/Personnel system, which got us well on the way to the year 2000 requirements, as well as upgrading many aspects of the payroll system processing. The implementation date is set

for October 1999, although it will probably be done months earlier.

Telephone inquiries, although not specifically tracked, appear to be at record levels, with the Benefits staff of 7 pressed to answer calls quickly enough to keep lines

open.

With the USCP transferred from the Senate to the NFC payroll system March 1,

1998, this Section single handedly completed the transfer. All aspects of the movement of about 700 staff off the Senate payroll, including all payroll and benefits

records and computer data went off without a hitch and was completed within one

month of the transfer. The USCP was extremely complimentary regarding the Benefits Section’s performance.

DISBURSING OFFICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

During fiscal year 1998, the Disbursing Office restructured its functional departments that were responsible for financial management. In previous years, these responsibilities were carried out by the combined efforts of the Accounting, Audit, and

Financial Management Systems Development Sections. In order to execute the Senate’s mandates to install an integrated financial management system that replaces

current stand alone systems that are not Year 2000 compliant and in order to prepare consolidated, auditable financial statements, it was necessary to reorganize

these departments.

Headed by the Chief Financial Officer, the mission of Disbursing Office Financial

Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all central financial policies, procedures, and

activities to produce an auditable consolidated financial statement for the Senate

and to provide professional customer service, training and confidential financial

guidance to all Senate accounting locations. DOFM is segmented into four functional

departments: Accounting, Budget, Financial Systems, and Policy and Control. The

CFO coordinates the activities of the four functional departments, establishes central financial policies and procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the HR Admin-
243

istrator, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk of the Senate. The new

functional department responsibilities are diagramed below:

The CFO continues to participate in the Legislative Branch Financial Manager’s

Council. This group was formed with the lead of the General Accounting Office and

Library of Congress to help coordinate and standardize accounting and financial reporting practices throughout the Legislative Branch. Participation enhances the

planning effort in converting to the standard general ledger of the government and

implement obligation and accrual basis accounting.

The most significant event and activity of the past year for Disbursing Office Financial Management has been the change of management responsibility for the Senate’s Financial Management Information System (FMIS), and the implications of

this change on the DOFM. In May of 1998, responsibility for the planning and execution of the Senate’s Financial Management Information System (FMIS) was assigned to the Disbursing Office. In June the Financial Clerk of the Senate designated the CFO as the new Project Director. The following paragraphs will give a

status of FMIS and what was accomplished in the past six months.

FMIS Project Background and Strategic Initiatives

There are four major phases of the FMIS strategic initiative: Replace, Rollout, Report, and Reengineer. The Disbursing Office is currently proceeding with the replacement phase of FMIS. The general tasks associated with this phase include: replacing the Disbursing Office general ledger system (DOVES); upgrading the Sergeant at Arms mainframe core financial system on October 1, 1998 to support the

financial management operation for the Senate on a single, Year 2000 compliant

platform; and replace and deploy an automated procurement system within the offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms offices on October 1, 1998. The Senate’s selection for the replacement of the core financial and procurement systems are

the KPMG Federal FAMIS 4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 products.

Federal FAMIS (Financial Accounting Management Information System) is the

general ledger system that replaces a conglomeration of more than a dozen existing

systems (see attached schedule). ADPICS (Advanced Purchasing and Inventory Control System) is an upgrade to the purchasing system used by the Sergeant at Arms

and replaces purchasing capabilities of several other systems throughout the Senate. The FAMIS and ADPICS products are being integrated so that the Senate may

instantly record the procurement activity as a financial event on the general ledger.

The ADPICS product is also being used as the front end voucher preparation system

that will replace the systems currently being used by the Member Offices and Committees.

The Rollout phase of the FMIS initiative began in February, 1999. The Rollout

involves distributing the financial and purchasing systems throughout the Member

Offices, Committees and other administrative offices of the Senate. The two main

tasks in this phase are the training of functional staff and technical support of the

offices once they are online. The Disbursing Office will proceed methodically with

the distribution of the system throughout fiscal year 1999 in order to provide as

much support as possible to offices during the conversion. In February, 1999 the

eight new Member offices came online together with a pilot group of four existing

Member offices (two Republican and two Democratic) that have been selected for the

pilot program by the Office Managers of the Senate. In March of 1999, all users of

the Senate Committee Expense Accounting System (SCEAS) will be converted to
244

FMIS. Finally, starting in May of 1999, blocks of twenty offices will be converted

to FMIS, with the goal of complete Senate-wide conversion by September 30, 1999.

During fiscal year 1999, the Disbursing Office will process all financial transactions for Senate Offices in FMIS. This decision will greatly reduce the complexity

of the Rollout phase of the project. Expense reimbursement requests are created

from existing systems within Senate Offices and forwarded to the Disbursing Office.

The Disbursing Office is reclassifying the vendor numbers, expense and account

classification into FMIS format, performing the data entry, and maintaining all of

the Senate accounts. Currently, offices have to reconcile with Disbursing Office

records on a monthly basis. Upon conversion, an office will have direct access to the

account that the Disbursing Office has been maintaining throughout the fiscal year,

thus eliminating the need for data conversion from one system to another.

The third phase of FMIS is Reporting. The Disbursing Office has developed a classification structure that will enable entity level reporting and the general ledger

structure necessary to create proprietary financial statements. Many gaps still exist

in the information that is required for these financial statements. The most obvious

of these information gaps is asset valuation. One of the major tasks in the reporting

phase of the project is the development and integration of a fixed asset module that

will provide timely asset valuation and allow the financial staff to depreciate the

value of equipment used by the Senate. Another major reporting task is the complete revision of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate to extract data from FMIS

more efficiently than was the case in previous systems. Development and distribution of financial reports to FMIS users will also be a major focus of the reporting

phase of FMIS.

Reengineering the technical environment is the fourth phase of FMIS. The FMIS

vision is for a secure, paperless, fully integrated financial system complete with signature authentication, optical scanning, storage and retrieval of documents. The

challenge in this phase will be the critical assessment of commercially available

technology to find the best solution for the Senate’s business needs. During fiscal

year 1999, the Disbursing Office will develop the program plan to be followed to attain this vision.

FMIS Project Status

The core FAMIS and ADPICS systems were delivered by KPMG to the Senate for

acceptance testing on September 21, 1998. The Senate’s acceptance testing of

FAMIS and ADPICS was aggressively managed to complete accelerated testing of

core functions in less than two weeks (the original program plan called for six

months of testing). Most of the functional financial staff of the Disbursing Office and

Sergeant at Arms participated in the acceptance testing and completed an extraordinary amount of work under the intense pressure of completing the fiscal year-end

activities and reporting, as well as meeting acceptance testing deadlines. The efforts

paid off, as successful acceptance testing confirmed the decision to convert to the

new system for fiscal year 1999. On October 1, a purchase order for the Office of

the Secretary was posted ‘‘live’’. Also by October 1, the Disbursing Office had successfully developed and installed the Senator’s Office Accounting System version

1999 (SOAS99) for Member Offices and received the first SOAS99 voucher. SOAS99

is an upgrade of the existing SOAS system which incorporates much of the accounting classification structure of FMIS which will ease the transition to FMIS for Member Offices. On October 18, 1998 final accounting fiscal year closing of the DOVES

system was completed. On October 19, the FAMIS check writing system produced

the first check payment. Over the course of the last several months, DOFM has continued the transition to operation of the new financial system, and is developing the

operational procedures and accounting structure to accommodate all of the Senate’s

financial transactions. The scale of the conversion has forced DOFM to rewrite every

single accounting transaction. Initial efforts prioritized the transactions by volume,

and worked first on Member Office transactions, then Sergeant at Arms, Committees, Revolving Funds, and Office of the Secretary.

During the initial installation, the Disbursing Office executed concurrent system

acceptance testing, staff training, and the reclassification of accounting transactions

from cash basis to obligation and accrual basis. Also throughout the initial installation, significant system performance issues contributed to delays in the payment of

the Senate’s bills. A system performance project has been initiated, bringing the

technical staffs of the Sergeant at Arms and KPMG together with the Disbursing

Office on a daily basis to address immediate and long term system performance

issues. The early problems have been resolved and payments are now being processed within 14 days after the Disbursing Office receives the required documentation. The support and patience of the Senate community as the Disbursing Office
245

became proficient in transaction processing, and as system performance issues were

resolved was tremendous, and the Disbursing Office expresses its thanks.

Several financial policy decisions have been made during the phase one implementation that will have an immediate impact on the Senate’s financial reporting capabilities. The Senate has adopted the Standard General Ledger (SGL) used by the

majority of the Federal Government. This decision will enable the Senate to prepare

standard financial statements consistent in form and content with other federal

agencies. Also adopted is the object classification for expenditures of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). This decision will enable the categorization of

budget authority and expenditure reporting consistent throughout the Senate and

consistent with the other federal agencies.

FMIS Keys to Success

Successful implementation of a financial management system, or any complicated

task for that matter, cannot be achieved without the proper resources, the proper

management of those resources, and the cooperation, dedication, and work ethic of

each individual involved in the project. Efforts thus far with FMIS have been fortunate to have resources made available by the Senate and particularly by the Secretary of the Senate and the outstanding efforts of those individuals in the Disbursing Office and Sergeant at Arms who have worked many long days, nights, and

weekends to bring the project back on schedule. The cooperation between the Offices

of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms during this aggressive implementation has been tremendous.

ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT

The Accounting Department combines the functions of the Accounting and Audit

Sections in the former Disbursing Office configuration. The goal in the combination

of the Sections was to combine responsibilities that were functionally related, such

as accounts payable, in order to maximize efficiencies in the delivery of service to

the Senate.

The Accounting Department has several functional responsibilities including:

—Maintain the Senate’s financial records and statements.

—Maintain general ledger accounts and other accounting records in FMIS.

—Ensure adherence to appropriation limitations established by the Legislative

Branch Appropriations Act, and Title 2 of the United States Code.

—Perform various GL account reconciliations (Suspense, Clearing accounts).

—Reconcile fixed assets with Sergeant at Arms fixed asset management module

in FMIS.

—Process accounts payable for the Senate and coordinate disbursements.

—Provide accurate and timely reports to Senate distributed accounting locations.

—Establish and maintain internal controls over financial processes.

—Design and manage monthly and year-end closing processes and procedures.

—Prepare audited consolidated financial statements and notes in compliance with

the latest FASAB and OMB requirements.

—Manage the annual financial statement audit with GAO or independent auditors.

General Activities

During fiscal year 1998, the Accounting Section and the new Accounts Payable

Department processed nearly 90,000 expense reimbursement vouchers for payment

on 66,719 United States Treasury checks issued. Accounting Operations processed

1,780 deposits for items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations,

such as the Stationery Room, to canceled subscription refunds from Member offices.

General ledger maintenance also prompted the entry of 8,573 adjustment entries

that include the entry of all appropriation and allowance funding limitation transactions, all accounting cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement

transactions such as payroll adjustments, stop payment requests, travel advance

and repayments, and limited payability reimbursements.

Financial Reporting Requirements—External

Monthly financial reporting requirements to the Department of the Treasury include a Statement of Accountability that details all increases and decreases to the

accountability of the Secretary of the Senate, such as checks issued during the

month and deposits received, as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also reported to the Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis is the Statement of

Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of every penny disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of the Senate. All activity by ap-
246

propriation account is reconciled with the Department of the Treasury on a monthly

and annual basis. The annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement

is also used in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget as part of

the submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.

The Accounting Department also transmits all Federal tax payments on a monthly basis for Federal, Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from payroll expenditures, as well as the Senate’s matching contribution for Social Security and

Medicare to the Federal Reserve Bank on a monthly basis. The Department also

performs quarterly reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and annual reporting and reconciliation with the IRS and the Social Security Administration. Payments for Senate employee withholding for state income taxes are reported and paid

on a quarterly basis to each state with applicable state income taxes withheld.

Monthly reconciliations are performed with the National Finance Center regarding

the Senate’s employee withholding and agency matching contributions for the Thrift

Savings Plan. All employee withholdings and agency contributions for life and

health insurance, and federal retirement programs are transmitted to the Office of

Personnel Management on a monthly basis. Any adjustment to employee contributions to any of the health, life and retirement plans from previous accounting periods are also processed by the Accounting Department.

One of the key components of implementing FMIS on an extremely tight schedule

this past year was the decision to utilize DOFM functional staff for acceptance testing of the system. Beginning in July, DOFM managers worked with KPMG to develop training materials for ADPICS and FAMIS. DOFM staff were trained on the

basic functions of the system in August and September and moved directly into acceptance testing of the system in September. While maintaining current reporting

responsibilities and closing out old systems, the efforts of DOFM staff supported the

decision to migrate to FMIS in October. Throughout the fall, DOFM Accounting Department staff have been executing the design and reclassification of all accounting

transactions for operation in FMIS. The key development efforts have focused upon

the check writing module and travel transactions. The Accounting Department has

worked diligently over the past year to improve the service that is provided to the

Senate customer base: Member Offices, Committees, and Leadership, and support

offices. Despite early system performance issues that resulted in delays in the Senate’s payment cycle, the staff of DOFM are currently processing all of the Senate’s

bills in less than two weeks from when the proper documentation is received in the

Disbursing Office.

Financial Reporting Requirements—Internal

Internally, the Accounting Section prepares and transmits ledger statements

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

form. On a semiannual basis all committee ledgers are reconciled with the Accounting Section records, and the results are reported to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Also, on a semiannual basis, the Accounting Department prepares necessary reports and information to be included in the Report of the Secretary of the

Senate. On a monthly and semiannual basis, a complete reconciliation of the Senate

payroll is performed. Substantial effort in the Reporting Phase of FMIS will require

extensive work to modify existing reports and develop new reports to meet the internal and external reporting requirements of DOFM.

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AUDIT SECTION

The Accounts Payable Audit Section of the Accounting Department is responsible

for auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation, identifying duplicate payments vouchered by offices, monitoring payments related to

contracts, training new Office Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial

practices, training Office Managers in the use of the Senate’s Financial Management Information System, and producing the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.

The Section also maintains the Senate’s central vendor file and monitors the Fund

Advance Tracking System (FATS) by ensuring that advances are charged correctly,

vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances adjusted for reuse of the

advance funds. An ‘‘aging’’ process is also performed to ensure that advances are repaid in the time specified by the advance regulations.

General Activities

Participated in various seminars sponsored by the Office Manager groups, Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms, and the Library of Congress.
247

Performed the following training sessions for individual offices: new Office Managers/Chief Clerks, 35; SOAS users, 26.

Assisted the audit staff of the Committee on Rules and Administration with the

drafting of changes to the travel regulations.

The number of active American Express accounts has grown approximately 10

percent from 700 to 765 accounts over the period January-September 1998. This has

increased the amount of time necessary to work with offices in the submission of

the expense claims. The Senate has had to work through a change of vendors for

the travel card as of November 1998. These accounts are being monitored on a

monthly basis, and when necessary, offices are encouraged to submit the expense

voucher in a more timely manner.

The number of Rocky Mountain Bank Card Accounts has increased from 23 to 40

offices actively using the card. This necessitates an active participation in the training of the offices and the monitoring of the account to avoid the payment of finance

changes that may accrue to this account. The Senate has had to also work through

a change of vendors for the procurement card as of November 1998.

Work was completed involving the Sergeant at Arms and Committee on Rules and

Administration for a ‘‘Memo of Understanding’’ between the Senate and the U.S.

Postal Service. This memo provides a more efficient method of billing and easier reconciliation of same. Several meetings were held between all parties and are still occurring to resolve some issues.

The system, established through the use of cc:Mail and/or voice mail, for the research of vouchers in 1997 has received favorable comments. Office Managers and

Chief Clerks use cc:Mail and/or voice mail to make inquiries concerning a payment

status for an expense or where it might be in the process. This procedure has allowed for an increase in staff productivity as individual staff designated to monitor

the inquiry line devote time to this effort rather than having multiple staff being

interrupted as each call was received.

Automation Report

The implementation of SOAS 99 in Senatorial Offices provides the interim process

for the period October 1998 through the transition to the new Senate FMIS. SOAS

99 introduces offices to the concepts of index and object codes which are crucial to

the Senate’s FMIS.

Audit Staff attended 30∂ seminars conducted by KPMG on the operation and performance of the ADPICS and FAMIS systems prior to implementation in October

1998.

Future objectives are to provide for a successful Rollout to the initial pilot group

of 12 offices, followed by the Committee implementation as their new funding period

begins March 1999, and finally Member offices in groups of 20, spaced April-September 1999, to send staff to KPMG training classes for the FMIS system and the

ADPICS system (and any other modules that the Senate might procure), and to participate in user conferences sponsored by KPMG.

BUDGET DEPARTMENT

A key component of the continued restructuring of DOFM is the development of

a Budget Department. The primary responsibilities of the Budget Department will

be to compile the annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on Appropriations. The development of specialists in the

budget area will allow current staff with dual responsibilities in Accounting to focus

their efforts on general ledger activity.

Other responsibilities of the Budget Department will be as follows:

—Responsible for the formulation, presentation and execution of the budget for

the Senate.

—Provide a wide range of analytical, technical and advisory functions related to

the budget process.

—Coordinate efforts among central and distributed financial organizations to

produce an integrated budget plan for the Senate.

—Prepare justification requests for requested appropriations.

—Provide expert advice to Senate officials on budgetary policy.

—Prepare necessary documentation and provides historical reference resource for

the Committee on Appropriations.

—Act as budget officer for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in the preparation

of testimony for the hearings before the Committee on Appropriations and the

Committee on Rules and Administration.

—Provide advice and recommendations on the discretionary use of funds by distributed accounting locations.
248

—Provide assistance to the Committee on Appropriations in drafting Legislative

Branch Appropriations Bills and accompanying reports and schedules.

—Manage complete information of financial management budgetary precedents

and controls, and OMB and Treasury Department guidelines and regulations

governing the acquisition and use of Federal Funds.

—Monitor budget execution and recommend necessary transfer and reprogramming of funds at the entity and agency level.

—Review budget estimates with the distributed accounting locations, making recommendations, pointing out budget limitations, and significant deviations from

past years.

—Analyze obligations, expenditures, and receipts in relation to approved work

programs and appropriated funds, making investigations and recommendations

involving the proper utilization of these funds.

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT

Another key component of the DOFM restructuring plan during 1998 was the establishment of a Financial Systems Department. While not yet fully staffed, a key

manager was brought on board who proved to be instrumental in the development

and execution of the FMIS project.

The following functions are the responsibility of the Financial Systems Department: Develop FMIS classification structure and perform table maintenance; establish and maintain system security features; provide FMIS support to system users

Senate-wide and perform software acceptance testing of new releases; develop ad

hoc reports upon request; automate vendor and employee payments; manage and

maintain the Senate’s vendor file; and perform general ledger account creation and

field structure in FMIS.

POLICY AND CONTROL DEPARTMENT

The final component of the restructuring of DOFM planned for 1999 is the development of a financial Policy and Control Department. The initial function of this

department will be to work with GAO and an external vendor to perform an

auditability assessment of the Senate’s financial management structure. This task

will identify information gaps in the Senate’s operations that will be necessary to

fill in order to prepare auditable financial statements.

Additional responsibilities of the Department are as follows:

—Develop and maintain comprehensive financial management policy and procedures manual to the transaction level.

—Incorporate policy changes published in the Federal Register, OMB Circulars,

and other relevant legislation into CFM.

—Coordinate with the Financial Systems Department to incorporate policy

changes into financial systems and incorporate FMIS system changes at the

transaction level into the procedures manual.

—Provide a counseling and reference service for distributed accounting locations

regarding Senate financial procedure.

—Perform internal audit function within financial management organization.

—Prepare recommended financial policy and procedures manual for distribution

to all Senate accounting locations.

—Serve as liaison with federal agencies such as JFMIP, GSA, and FASAB.

—Provide expertise in developing RFP’s, SOW’s, and serve on evaluation panels.

—Manage the Senate’s debt collection process.

—Provide and coordinate internal and external FMIS training and certifying officer training.

Staff Changes

The Disbursing Office announces the retirement of Stuart F. Balderson as Financial Clerk and the promotion of Timothy S. Wineman to that position.

OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

The Office of Human Resources implements and coordinates human resources

policies, procedures, and programs for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate including hiring; training; performance management; job analysis; compensation planning, design, and administration; leave administration; records management; recruiting and staffing; employee handbooks and manuals; internal grievance procedures; employee relations and services; and organizational planning and development.
249

Quality of Life Initiatives

The Office of the Secretary continued to focus on quality of life programs during

the past year. After successfully testing new hours of operation for non-floor-dependent employees and a flexible-hour work schedule, the Secretary approved a permanent change to both initiatives. While offices in direct support of the Senate Chamber must follow the work schedule of the Senate, all other offices must be open from

9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., as opposed to 6:00 p.m. previously. The Office was able to

implement this program without altering the start time by reducing the lunch period from one hour to one-half hour. Employees desiring longer lunch periods may

schedule them through the Secretary’s flexible-hour program. The newest ‘‘family

friendly’’ initiative, and a key feature of flexible scheduling, is the ‘‘core hours,’’ a

set time where everyone must be present for duty. With core hours set at 10:00

a.m.–4:00 p.m., employees can, for example, request approval from their supervisor

to flex for early-morning or late-in-the-day medical appointments, parenting responsibilities, and the like. The program is, therefore, a win-win situation for the Office

as well as the employee.

Human Resources Management System (HRMS)

In mid-1998, Human Resources and Systems Application specialists from the Office of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms formed a team to study the problem

of maintaining large amounts of employee data without a adequate data base. Since

that time, systems requirements were identified and various vendor software applications were evaluated. Lawson Software was selected to fill this void. System training will begin in March 1999. A powerful, fully integrated system, Lawson will provide both organizations with everything needed to execute essential day-to-day activities while taking full advantage of state-of-the art technology in other areas like

the internet and intranet. Targeted to be on-line in June 1999, employees will be

able to make changes to their personal information in a completely automated,

paperless process. They will be able to check on sick leave and annual leave balances, for example, and report time worked in the automated time and attendance

system.

Intern Program

The Office hosted 28 interns during the summer of 1998. Serving in 11 different

departments, these interns made many worthwhile contributions to the goals and

objectives of the organization and received a unique educational and work experience.

SENATE LIBRARY

The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and general reference

services to the United States Senate. The comprehensive legislative collection consists of congressional documents dating from the Continental Congress. In addition,

the Library maintains executive and judicial branch materials and an extensive

book collection on politics, history, and biography. These sources plus a wide array

of online systems assist the Library staff in providing confidential, timely, and accurate information services.

Administration

The second year of budget review delivered an additional $3,070.33 reduction in

operating expenses. These savings were in addition to more than $11,000 in 1997

reductions. The eliminated materials will not compromise service. The money saved

will allow for the purchase of core materials as costs increase and for the purchase

of materials for the restored Capitol library. A second important budgetary success

was implementing favorable fixed-fee pricing for all commercial databases that allows for unlimited searching and printing.

Russell Building and Capitol Libraries

In April 1997, the Secretary requested that the Library develop plans for a new

Russell Building library facility and for the renovation of the historic third-floor

Capitol space. The Minneapolis design firm of Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle

(MS&R) submitted preliminary Russell Building plans that were approved in September. Demolition of the Russell space began in late December 1997. Progress

highlights during 1998 included design planning, selecting equipment and furniture,

bidding for all materials, removing hazardous materials, installing mobile shelving,

upgrading electrical and air-handling equipment, and exposing the corridor’s natural brick. As demolition continued, Russell Building interior plans were finalized

by October 1998. Once the mobile shelving was completed, Library staff and Moving

Masters, a professional moving company, transferred 100,000 volumes from the
250

Capitol to the Russell Building. The second phase of the move took place during

February 1999. The opening date for the Russell Building Library was February 22,

1999.

Simultaneous to the Russell Building project was the planning for the renovation

of the historic Senatorial Reading Room. MS&R worked closely with Architect of the

Capitol staff to design the restoration of the historic room to its nineteenth-century

appearance.

Information Services

During 1998, Information Services responded to 37,542 Senate requests, sent

5,432 deliveries, and 5,076 faxes. Information Services conducted 38,045 searches

for news, legal, and business information on the Library’s outstanding selection of

online commercial services. The Senators’ Reading Room was used by 6,841 patrons;

201,498 photocopies were produced; and micrographics use increased by 42 percent

over the previous year. The optical disk system, providing documents scanned by

the Library of Congress, continued to be popular with more than 2,162 items reproduced. In October, the Library inaugurated an electronic request mailbox

(Reference@sec.gov) and a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD). The two

new services allow for 24-hour access, which better meets the needs of state offices,

staff who work late, and special-needs patrons.

Acquisitions

The Library ordered 259 books during the year, a decrease of 19 percent from the

1997 total. Selected book purchases have been made for the Capitol location, but

most Capitol books will be ordered just before the September opening to ensure current editions. For the second year, all standing-order accounts were critically reviewed; several were discontinued and others will be received during alternating

years.

The Library received 3,155 committee hearings, an increase of 19 percent over the

previous year; 158 committee prints, a 49 percent decrease over the previous year;

and 1,187 congressional reports and documents, which is a new statistical category.

A continuing acquisitions problem is the practice by some committees of providing

documents only through the Internet, thus bypassing traditional printing. The Library has undertaken the task of ensuring that all ‘‘Internet-only’’ congressional materials are placed in the permanent collection. The Government Printing Office’s Depository Library Program provided the Library (without charge) with 10,510 items,

including 3,841 paper and 6,669 microfiche titles, a 13 percent increase over 1997.

In addition to congressional materials, the program provides core judicial and executive branch publications.

Cataloging

The cataloging of congressional documents dramatically increased over 1997 totals. The cataloged items included 959 new House committee hearings, which was

an impressive 97 percent increase over 1997 totals. In addition, the cataloging of

House committee prints increased 108 percent and government document

microforms increased 36 percent increase over 1997 totals. The cataloging of newly

arriving Senate committee hearings and Senate committee prints increased 124 percent and 103 percent, respectively. The ambitious retrospective project of cataloging

the Library’s collection of historic committee hearings produced records for 549

House hearings and 2,191 Senate hearings. This important project will provide identification and access not only to the Senate Library, but to libraries worldwide.

Automation

DataTrek, the Library’s online cataloging and acquisitions system, continued to

have problems in 1998 that included incorrect set-ups and recurring errors in the

serials and acquisitions modules. Year 2000 compliance necessitated software upgrades and after the review of available systems it was determined that DataTrek

provided the best alternative through their new Graphical Library Automation System (GLAS) software. In preparation for GLAS, a faster NT server with Windows

NT, was installed to reduce system maintenance, release storage space on the Secretary’s server, and provide for a more stable platform. The decision to remain with

DataTrek was based on cost, the pending Library move, and a less-demanding

record conversion, but the upgrade should be considered an interim solution.

OFFICE OF THE SENATE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (‘‘SCCE’’) is a non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights Act (‘‘GERA’’), which allowed Senate em-
251

ployees to file claims of employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the

enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (‘‘CAA’’), Senate offices

are now subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of 11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with the legal representation of Senate offices in

all employment law matters at both the administrative and court levels. Also, on

a day-to-day basis, the office provides legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate

is an individual client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-client relationship with the SCCE.

Background

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

SCCE can be divided into the following categories: Litigation (Defending Against

Lawsuits); Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions; Preventive Legal Advice; Union Drives, Negotiations and Unfair Labor

Practice Charges; OSHA/ADA Compliance; Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law; and Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities.

Litigation (Defending Against Lawsuits); Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions

The SCCE represents each of the 180 employing offices of the Senate in all court

actions (including both trial and appellate courts), hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles

cases filed in the District of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states. The

SCCE represents a defendant Senate office from the inception of a case through

U.S. Supreme Court review. The office handles all work internally without the assistance of outside law firms or the Department of Justice.

During 1998, the SCCE defended Senate offices in 17 cases (which required approximately 6,599 attorney work hours). The SCCE either won or successfully negotiated a resolution to 8 of those cases; 2 were withdrawn by the complainants after

several mediation sessions with the SCCE; and 7 are currently pending. Five of the

17 cases were filed in U.S. District Courts. This number is significant because one

jury trial in federal court typically generates over 2,500 attorney work hours per

year, whereas a 1-day administrative hearing typically generates approximately

500–600 work hours.

Additionally, the SCCE successfully represented Senate employing offices in 4 unemployment compensation hearings. In no instance was the employee awarded compensation.

Preventive Legal Advice

At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is contemplating

suing, and the office will request the SCCE’s legal advice and/or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee’s attorney before the employee files a lawsuit. The successful resolution of such matters substantially reduces an office’s liability.

Also, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels at their request. The purpose of the advice and meetings are to prevent litigation and to minimize liability

in the event of litigation. For example, on a daily basis, the SCCE advises Senate

offices on matters such as disciplining/terminating employees in compliance with the

law, handling and investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating the

disabled, determining wage law requirements, meeting the requirements of the

Family and Medical Leave Act, and management’s rights and obligations under

union laws and OSHA.

Between January and December 1998, the SCCE has had more than 2,066 conferences with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief

Clerks and General Counsels to provide legal advice.

Union Drives, Negotiations And Unfair Labor Practice Charges

In 1998, the SCCE successfully defeated one union drive and assisted in the contract review and collective bargaining negotiations of a union that won its election

in 1997.

The SCCE also represents Senate offices when unfair labor charges are brought

against it. The investigation, negotiation and administrative proceedings associated

with an unfair labor charge can require as many attorney work hours as that of

any claims of discrimination filed with the Office of Compliance. During 1998, the

SCCE defended against 3 unfair labor charges brought against Senate offices.
252

OSHA/ADA Compliance

The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by assisting them with

complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections; advising State offices on the preparation of the

Office of Compliance’s Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting

offices in the preparation of Emergency Action Plans (in 1998 the SCCE distributed

to all Senate offices a sample Emergency Action Plan that could easily be completed

to meet each office’s needs); and advising and representing Senate offices when a

complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed with the Office of Compliance or

when a citation has been issued.

Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law

The SCCE provides legal advice and strategy to individual Senate offices regarding how to minimize legal liability in compliance with the law when offices reduced

their forces.

In addition, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

(‘‘WARN’’), offices that are closing must follow certain procedures for notifying their

employees of the closing and for transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE

tracks office closings and notifies those offices of their legal obligations under the

WARN. In 1998, the SCCE advised 8 Senate offices of their legal obligations under

this law.

Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities

In 1998, in an attempt to find a more efficient and cost-effective way of providing

Members’ state offices with necessary management training, the SCCE, in conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio, introduced in the Senate 2-way interactive

internet seminars. This process allows the SCCE to give legal seminars to Member

offices here in D.C. and simultaneously to broadcast them to state offices via the

internet. The state offices access the seminars (by audio and video) on their PC’s

at no cost to the state offices. The state office participants are also connected by

telephone cable so that they can fully participate in the seminars by asking questions, as would any member of the audience in D.C. The SCCE introduced this concept in the Senate, and, to date, is the only office that has used the internet in this

2-way interactive method. The seminars are extremely cost-effective because they

eliminate the need for an attorney to travel to the state offices, and they reduce

legal problems by ensuring that all managers understand their legal obligations

under the CAA. These seminars have been very well received by Member offices;

82 state offices participated in 1998.

The SCCE conducted 63 legal seminars during 1998. Most of these seminars were

broadcast simultaneously over the internet to state offices. Among the topics covered

was ‘‘Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.’’ That topic

was necessitated by two recent Supreme Court decisions.

Additional seminars the SCCE conducted for Senate office managers were: The

Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: What Managers Need to Know About

Their Rights and Obligations; Managers’ Obligations Under the Family and Medical

Leave Act; The Legal Pitfalls of Hiring the Right Employee: Advertising, Interviewing, Drug Testing and Background Checks; Disciplining, Evaluating and Terminating an Employee Without Violating Employment Laws; Management’s Obligations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act; and Equal Pay for Equal Work:

Management’s Obligations Under the Equal Pay Act.

Also, in December 1998, the SCCE provided an extensive overview of a Senate

office’s legal obligations under the CAA to the Senators-Elect and their Chiefs of

Staff during the Secretary of the Senate’s orientation program. During this presentation the SCCE provided the Senators-Elect and their staff with a quick reference

guide entitled ‘‘Organizing and Managing a Senate Office in Compliance with the

Law,’’ as well as other written materials to assist the Senators-Elect in setting up

their new offices. In January 1999, the SCCE provided a similar presentation to all

Office Managers, both new and existing, to review a Senate office’s legal obligations

under the CAA.

Finally, the SCCE continues to publish its bi-monthly newsletter that it distributes to all Senate offices. The newsletter is designed to provide Senate offices with

information concerning developments in labor and employment laws.

Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters

The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices in preparing employee

handbooks/office policies, supervisors’ manuals, sample job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and job evaluation forms.
253

The SCCE also reviews all regulations issued by the Office of Compliance and advises the Senate as to whether the regulations should be approved, modified, or not

approved.

OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION

The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and coordinates programs

directly related to the conservation and preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of the Senate has statutory authority. Initiatives include mass deacidification, phased conservation for books and documents, collection

surveys, and contingency planning for disaster response and recovery.

Work Prepared for Senate Leadership

For more than twenty years the office has bound a copy Washington’s Farewell

Address for the annual Washington’s Farewell Address ceremony. This year, a volume was bound for and read by Senator Mary Landrieu.

At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the Office of Interparliamentary Services, marbled paper slipcases were fabricated for the book, The

United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred J. Maroon, and were presented to 18

dignitaries during Senate Trips.

At the request of the Senate Democratic Leadership, 48 folders were embossed

with the name of each Senator. Six hundred thirty-five items were matted and

framed, this included resolutions, photographs, and letters.

The office fabricated 12 leather bound notebooks for the Senate Majority Leader

and one for the Assistant Majority Leader.

In conjunction with the newly created Leader’s Lecture Series, the office prepared

several presentation pieces. Each guest speaker received a leather bound box for

speeches, a leather bound notebook, and a matted and framed rare print. In addition, photographs representing each speakers careers were matted and framed for

display at the reception following each historic speech. This years guest speakers

included The Honorable Mike Mansfield, The Honorable Howard H. Baker, Jr., and

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd.

Senate Library

In 1998 conservation treatments were completed for 421 volumes of a 7,000 volume collection. Also this year, the office prepared and sent 668 books from the Senate Library to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for binding.

In a effort to preserve valuable nineteenth-century Senate documents, the Office

of Conservation and Presentation, in cooperation with the Senate Library, rebound

a complete set of the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Debates From 1789–

1824. These volumes are very rare. While the Senate Library has several sets in

storage, every volume is in need of major repair and restoration. The Office of Conservation and Preservation will continue in 1999 to assist the Senate Library in

their effort to save these irreplaceable historical documents.

Office of the Senate Curator

The office assisted the Office of the Senate Curator in the preparation and installation of museum quality exhibition labels for a public presentation of 30 black and

white photographs.

At the direction of the Office of the Senate Curator, the office installed 14 oversized black and white photographs of Capitol images. These photographs were eventually displayed in Hart 902.

Miscellaneous Projects

The office continues to utilize its spray deacidification system, encapsulation, and

dry mounting press. This year the office deacidified 43 items, encapsulated 59 items,

and dry mounted 177 items.

The office continues conservation treatment of Appropriation Bills 1877–1943.

This year the office completed 36 books. There are approximately 260 books remaining for treatment. These books are apart of the Appropriations Committee collection.

OFFICE OF SENATE SECURITY

The Office of Senate Security (OSS) is responsible for the administration of classified information, personnel security, counterintelligence and classified computer security programs in Senate offices and committees. OSS also serves as the Senate’s

liaison to the Executive Branch in matters relating to the security of classified information in the Senate.
254

Classified Meetings

OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 987 occasions during 1997. This

is a 4 percent increase in the utilization of OSS facilities over 1997 levels. Four hundred fifteen hearings, meetings or briefings were conducted in OSS’ three conference

rooms. In addition, OSS provided Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers, a secure facsimile machine and secure areas for reading classified material

on 572 occasions in 1998.

Document Control

The Senate received or generated 3,704 classified documents consisting of 158,711

pages during 1998. This is an 8 percent increase in the number of documents received during 1997. Overall, Senate Security completed 7,614 document transactions

and handled 318,389 pages of classified material during calendar year 1998.

Personnel Security

OSS workload in the personnel security area remained steady during 1998. Personnel security investigations were initiated on 139 Senate employees. Seventy-five

investigations were completed, and the remainder of the investigations (64) are

pending completion by the Department of Defense or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSS also completed 116 routine security clearance termination actions during 1998.

Security Education

OSS conducted or hosted 65 security briefings for Senate staff. Topics covered included: information security, counterintelligence, security managers’ responsibilities;

office security management; and introductory security briefings.

SENATE STATIONERY ROOM

The Senate Stationery Room provides stationery items for sale to Senate offices

and others authorized to use the service. The Stationery Room maintains an inventory and selects a variety of stationery items adequate to meet the needs of the Senate personnel, maintains individual stationery accounts for Senators, Committees,

and Offices, issues bills and statements and receives reimbursement for all purchases, delivers merchandise to Senatorial offices, and advertises for bids and

awards contracts for Senate stationery supplies.

Fiscal Year 1998 Statistical Operations

Gross Sales ....................................................................................................... $3,000,341

Sales Transactions ........................................................................................... 89,897

Generated Purchase Orders ............................................................................ 6,073

Vouchers Processed ......................................................................................... 7,481

Metro Fare Media Sold ................................................................................... 6,709

The reporting categories for statistical operations of the Stationery Room for fiscal

year 1998 saw increases in these categories: Sales transactions were up by 330.

Vouchers processed for vendor payments were up by 109. Metro Fare Media sold

were up by 1,085.

The Stationery Room and the Operation Division reviewed the new procedure in

which a flag will be inserted into a Tyvek envelope, sealed, mailing label and postage tape placed on the front of the envelope. The benefits are: the Tyvek envelopes

are supplied by the Postal Service to the Operations Divisions and the envelopes

store flat thus using less space; the time spent in packaging each flag will be greatly

reduced; the UPS will deliver the flags in 2 to 3 days instead of 10 to 14 days (Parcel Post), and since these packages will have a like appearance to all other Priority

mail, fewer flags will be lost and will save some time in tracking lost flags. This

process will make mailing the flags easier and more efficient.

By direction of the Secretary of the Senate and the Rules Committee, the Metro

Fare Subsidy was increased from $21 to $40 on November 1, 1998. This has led to

a significant increase in the use of Metro.

Fiscal year 1998 was a very busy year for the Stationery Room staff. The Stationery Room has undertaken a remodeling project in conjunction with its Y2K update. Since it would be necessary to establish new computer cables and locations for

new computers in the Stationery Room with a certain amount of disruption to the

sales area, it was determined that this would be a time to remodel. This project was

predicted to take about four months without interrupting daily sales. The Stationery

Room has not had a face lift of this proportion since it moved the entire operation

from the Russell building to the Dirksen building in 1980, approximately nineteen

years ago.
255

With the work of the Secretary of the Senate, Rules Committee and the Architect

of the Capitol, this project is turning into a great success. The Stationery Room has

been able to replace damaged shelving, paint the entire store, pull new computer

cables to work stations and replace the drab worn carpet with new carpeting. The

new look of the Stationery Room is clean, modern and professional.

Between February and April of 1999, the Stationery Room will have completed

its testing and installation of its Y2K software, giving it a complete revised look and

operation for the twenty-first century.

INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

The Office of Interparliamentary Services is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol functions for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate

participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also provides appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate delegations.

The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: North Atlantic Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group; Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; and British-American Parliamentary Group.

In May, the 39th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group

was held in Nantucket, Massachusetts. Arrangements for this successful event were

handled by the IPS staff.

As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the Leadership is arranged

by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation trips, IPS provided assistance to 11 individual foreign trips. Several other trips were scheduled, but were canceled or postponed after most of the advance work had been completed. Also, Senators and staff

authorized by committees for foreign travel continue to call upon this office for assistance with passports, visas, travel arrangements, and reporting requirements.

IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial reports for foreign

travel from all committees in the Senate. In addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore,

IPS staff also assist staff members of Senators and committees in filling out the required reports.

Known by many in the Senate as the ‘‘protocol office’’, Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department

of State, and with foreign embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently

received in this office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups by

the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other offices of the Secretary

of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in arranging programs for foreign visitors.

In addition, IPS is frequently consulted by individual Senators’ offices on a broad

range of protocol questions. Occasional questions come from state officials or the

general public regarding Congressional protocol.

On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the Senate for Heads

of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments, and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on behalf of foreign visitors under authority

of Public Law 100–71 are maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.

Planning is underway for the 38th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and the British-American Parliamentary Group Meeting, both

to be held in the United States in 1999. Advance work, including site inspection,

will be undertaken for the 41st Annual Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group

Meeting, to be held in the United States in 2000.

SENATE GIFT SHOP

The Senate Gift Shop provides services to Senators, Senate spouses, staff, visiting

constituents and U.S. Capitol visitors. Products available include a wide variety of

souvenir items and fine gifts. Services provided include the distribution of educational materials and the sale of special order products, custom framing, embossing, engraving, and shipping.

This year’s Congressional Holiday Ornament has proven to be a most popular collectors item. This was the first ornament of a four-year series depicting the early

years of the United States Congress.

Sales of the 105th Congressional plate, The Bicentennial Cornerstone plate, and

the Tiffany Round box continue to be good.

In the fall of 1998, the Gift Shop established an Engraving Department, allowing

better control of the quality and speed of this popular service. This state-of-the-art

computer driven equipment purchased by the Gift Shop will serve for many years

to come.
256

A major portion of the growth in sales is directly related to increases in special

order and phone order sales. This continuing growth is being supported by the new

Shipping Department which was equipped with a computerized labeling and tracking system last year.

Computer upgrades in 1999 will allow replacement of personal computers with

upgraded machines and software systems. The computers (cash registers) currently

used at point of sale locations will also be replaced and software and screen menus

redesigned to better serve sales and inventory needs.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains records, reports,

and other documents filed with the Secretary of the Senate involving the Federal

Election Campaign Act, as amended; the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct: Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate

Gift Rule filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor’s Reports on Individuals Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.

Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended

The Act required 1998 Senate candidates to file quarterly and pre-election reports,

and Senate candidates running in a year other than 1998 to file semi-annual reports. Filings totaled 8,374 documents containing 95,103 pages.

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

As of September 30, 1998, 4,422 registrants represented 11,813 clients and employed 18,590 individuals who met the statutory definition of ‘‘lobbyist.’’ 21,329 lobbying registrations and reports totaling 82,349 pages were received and made available to the public.

Public Financial Disclosure

The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15, 1998. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday, June 12th. A total of 2,512

reports and amendments were filed containing 12,982 pages. There were 360 requests to review or receive copies of the documents.

Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)

Effective January 1, 1998, the office revised the Senate Rule 35 travel forms, combining two employee forms into one combined form. The Senate Office of Public

Records has received over 1,500 reports totaling 2,000 pages during fiscal year 1998.

Registration of Mass Mailing

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

pages were 569.

Public Inquiries

From October, 1997, through September, 1998, the Public Records office staff assisted more than 3,100 individuals seeking information from reports filed with the

office. This figure does not include telephone assistance. A total of 148,198 photocopies were sold in the period.

Automation Activities

During fiscal year 1998, Public Financial Disclosure reports were scanned using

optical imaging technology. Starting with documents received after January 1, 1998,

lobbying reports were also scanned, and the office greatly expanded the amount of

information available to the public regarding the activities of lobbyists. Efforts to

allow lobbyists to file electronically, as well as to allow the public to retrieve filings

and data electronically were postponed to insure that a new campaign finance system would be operational and Y2K compliant.

HISTORICAL OFFICE

Serving as the institutional memory of the Senate, the Historical Office collects

and provides information on important events, precedents, dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past Senate activities for use by members and

staff, the media, scholars, and the general public. The Office advises senators, officers, and committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office files and

assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source materials. The Office keeps

extensive biographical, bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on

the more than 1,700 former senators. It edits for publication historically significant
257

transcripts and minutes of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and

conducts oral history interviews with retired senior Senate staff.

Leader’s Lecture Series

Majority Leader Trent Lott initiated the Leader’s Lecture Series, providing a

forum for outstanding former Senate leaders and other distinguished Americans to

share their insights about the recent history and long-term practices of the Senate.

Beginning on March 24, 1998, the lectures have been held in the historic Old Senate

Chamber before an audience of current Senators and specially invited guests from

the executive branch, the diplomatic corps, the media, and private enterprise. The

Senate Historical Office, in coordination with the Office of Senate Curator and other

offices under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, has provided editorial and production

support for the 1998 lectures of former Majority Leaders Mike Mansfield, Howard

Baker, and Robert C. Byrd, as well as the January 20, 1999, lecture by former

President George Bush. Text of all four lectures is now available on the Senate web

site and will soon be published as a book.

Editorial Projects

A History of the Democratic Policy Committee, 1947–1997: To commemorate the

fiftieth anniversaries of the Senate Republican and Democratic Policy Committees,

the Historical Office has prepared narrative histories of the committees, their members, their staffs, and their impact on legislation in the U.S. Senate. In 1997 the

Government Printing Office published the first of these two volumes, A History of

the Senate Republican Policy Committee, 1947–1997 (Senate Document 105–5).

Work is nearing completion on the Democratic Policy Committee’s companion volume.

Minutes of the Republican and Democratic Party Conferences, 1903–1964: In 1992

the Senate’s party leaders agreed to a recommendation of the Advisory Committee

on the Records of Congress that the Historical Office preserve, edit, and publish the

official minutes of each party conference, dating from the start of the twentieth century to a period thirty years before the present. The Office has now completed work

on a volume for each conference. Early in 1999, the Government Printing Office will

produce a 700-page volume of Democratic Conference minutes, covering the years

1903 through 1964. A companion volume for Republican Conference minutes spanning 1911 through 1964 will appear later in the year.

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–1999: The Office has

revised and updated Senate entries in the Biographical Directory of the United

States Congress. Since its last print publication in 1989, more than half of the database’s 1,851 Senate entries have been revised or updated, and dozens of new entries

have been added. Although the next decennial print edition is scheduled for publication in 2000, a current version of the database is now available online at http://

bioguide.congress.gov.

Oral History Program

The Historical Office opened for scholarly research the transcripts of oral history

interviews with Kelly D. Johnston, former Secretary of the Senate and staff director

of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. A series of interviews with Charles Ferris, former staff director of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, were also completed and are being processed. Additional interviews were also conducted, including

a series with C. Abbott Saffold, former Senate Democratic Secretary.

Member Services

‘‘Senate Historical Minutes’’: At the request of the Senate Democratic Leader, the

historian prepared and delivered a ‘‘Senate Historical Minute’’ at each of fifty-six

Senate Democratic Conference weekly meetings during the 105th Congress. These

300-word ‘‘minutes’’ are designed to enlighten members about significant events and

personalities associated with the Senate’s institutional development. Most of the

‘‘minutes’’ were subsequently published the day following delivery in The Hill newspaper. Those prepared in 1997 were assembled during 1998 in a booklet entitled

Thirty Minutes of Senate History. These and future ‘‘minutes’’ will be available as

a feature on the Senate’s redesigned home page.

Senators’ Office Records Management and Disposition Assistance: The Historical

Office assisted members’ offices that closed at the end of the 105th Congress with

planning for the preservation of their historical records. Briefings included guidance

on archiving information from computer systems, assistance with selecting a repository, and identification of which information is appropriate for historical preservation. All offices of retiring members transferred their member’s papers to a designated research repository of the member’s choice. Special assistance was given to
258

defeated incumbents by assisting staff with identifying an appropriate repository

and focusing on the preservation of the core collections.

Records Management Handbook for United States Senators and Their Archival

Repositories: The Historical Office issued an extensively revised edition of this publication, which features new information on the care and management of electronic

records.

Educational Outreach

Senate Office Building Brochures: Senators, staff, and visitors frequently seek information on the history and functions of the three Senate office buildings. To address this recurring need, the Historical Office produced an illustrated brochure for

each structure. Copies will be distributed through each member’s office and from a

central location within the respective buildings.

‘‘This Month In Senate History’’: Since September 1996, the Office has produced

a Senate home page feature entitled ‘‘This Month in Senate History.’’ The entries

for each month highlight approximately twenty institutionally significant events

that have occurred during that month throughout more than 200 years of Senate

history. Starting in May 1997, the Office also produced a brochure containing the

same information, which is provided to Senate offices for distribution to constituents

and other visitors.

Senate Home Page Redesign: The Historical Office contributed the following features to the recently redesigned Senate Web page:

—A brief history of the U.S. Senate and a chronology of the institution’s history.

—An introduction to the Office’s large photo collection, with information about ordering photos, copyright issues, and resources for researchers.

—A description of the ongoing oral history project, with full text and excerpted

text from past oral histories available online.

—Information on each state and its unique relationship to the Senate.

—Statistical tables.

—A collection of Senate ‘‘briefings’’ outlining the Senate’s role in such duties as

nominations, treaties, and impeachments.

—A collection of ‘‘historical minutes,’’ brief vignettes about Senate history.

—Access to the new online version of the Biographical Directory of the United

States Congress, which includes information from the Guide to Research Collections of Former United States Senators and Senators of the United States: A

Historical Bibliography.

Photographic Collections

The Historical Office continued to expand its 30,000-item photograph collection by

creating a photographic record of historically significant Senate events, and by actively seeking photographs of former senators. In addition to maintaining and adding to the Office’s image collection, the photo historian provided photographic reference service to the media, congressional offices, academic researchers, and the

general public. The Office’s newly acquired imaging software allowed the photo historian to digitize a number of items in the collection, a process that will help preserve frequently used photographs by storing them in an easily accessible format.

Photographs can now be scanned, viewed in electronic format, and sent via e-mail.

OFFICE OF SENATE CURATOR

The Office of Senate Curator, under the direction of the Senate Commission on

Art, administers the museum programs of the Senate for the Capitol and Senate office buildings. The Curator and staff suggest acquisitions, provide appropriate exhibits, engage in research, and write and edit publications. In addition, the office

studies, identifies, arranges, protects, preserves, and records the historical collections of the Senate, including paintings, sculpture, and furnishings; and exercises

supervisory responsibility for those chambers in the Capitol under the jurisdiction

of the Senate Commission on Art.

Exhibitions and Publications

The initiative to standardize the design of the Secretary’s educational publications

moved forward successfully, with a total of 14 brochures printed in the new format.

Publications produced by the office included: The Brumidi Corridors, Senate Art in

Stamps; and The Vice Presidential Bust Collection. The long awaited Guide to Senate Art progressed considerably. New signage was developed for several rooms, providing visitors with information on these historic spaces, and identification labels

were installed for the Vice Presidential Bust Collection.
259

Historic Chambers

The Curator’s staff continued to maintain the Old Supreme Court and Old Senate

Chambers, coordinating periodic use of both rooms for special occasions. The latter

chamber was used for three evening lectures as part of Senator Lott’s Leader’s Lecture Series.

Collections: Acquisitions and Management

The staff processed 20 loans for the Senate leadership, and continued to loan and

monitor the 450 reproduction prints in the Senate collection. The office received and

catalogued 13 foreign gifts accepted from various foreign governments; a system for

promoting the transfer of these gifts was established, and 11 gifts were transferred

to appropriate depositories. The most extensive physical inventory to date of the

Senate collection was conducted this year using a computer generated master list

of all collection objects created in the SNAP! data base.

Conservation and Restoration

Several significant paintings and frames received conservation treatment, including Patrick Henry by George Matthews and The Battle of Lake Erie by William H.

Powell. Four marble sculptures were substantially restored, and 25 other marble

busts were professionally cleaned and conserved. A new maintenance schedule was

implemented to improve the long-term care of the sculpture in the Senate collection.

Similarly, a training series was initiated to provide the staff of the Sergeant at

Arms with information on the care and handling of these works of art.

A five-year project to restore the 100 Senate Chamber desks was began this fall,

and the first ten desks were restored. Also part of the project, was the modification

to install unobtrusive bumpers on the end of each Senate Chamber chair arm to better protect the desks from damage.

Collaborations, Educational Programs, Events

The staff supported the Senate’s seminar program by presenting periodic addresses on various aspects of the Senate’s art and history. In a collaborative effort with

several offices, the staff participated in the development of a four-part program, titled ‘‘Congress & the Capitol: Tour Guide Series,’’ designed for individuals who conduct tours of the Capitol for constituents.

Automation

The Senate launched a new Virtual Tour of the Capitol at the Senate web site,

and the staff contributed substantially to this endeavor. A new interactive kiosk was

installed in the Senate wing of the Capitol. Titled ‘‘Welcome to the Digital U.S. Capitol,’’ the kiosk provides visitors with pertinent information on their state senator,

and the art in the Capitol related to their state. The staff also worked closely with

other Senate offices on the redesigned Senate web site.

Objectives For 1999

Conservation concerns continue to be a priority, with plans to conserve additional

Senate Chamber desks, frescoes, several historic mirrors, five paintings with frames,

five sculptures, furniture for the Senate Library, and to begin the first phase of conservation of the Old Supreme Court Chamber furnishings. Two new exhibitions are

scheduled, along with additional explanatory pylons for several historic rooms.

Progress will continue on the Guide to Senate Art. Work will proceed on the comprehensive disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plan for the Senate collection. A collections management and care policy will be developed, and a training

manual produced. The office will complete a comprehensive strategic plan for the

Senate Commission on Art, and a Senate Preservation Task Force will be established to develop long-term preservation and interpretive policies for the Capitol.

Projects will be developed for the year 2000 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of

the first meeting of Congress in the Capitol.

SENATE PAGE SCHOOL

The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth transition from

and to the students’ home schools, providing those students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially, as possible during their stay in the nation’s capital, within the limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.

Summary of accomplishments

The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools granted the Page School

accreditation for the next ten years.

Staff attended a number of staff development workshops including computer

classes, Advanced Placement training, subject matter specific seminars, and a lead-
260

ership conference. Foreign language tutoring was provided to students in French,

Spanish, German, Latin, and Russian. Staff provided a PSAT preparation course for

Pages. New, more sturdy computer work tables were provided.

During the Senate recess, school hours were expanded and many field trips were

taken to extend the educational experience of Pages. A trip to Philadelphia included

visits to Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Local trips included the National

Archives and Mount Vernon. Many speakers were added to the schedule, including

the Senate Parliamentarian, the Senate Historian, the Senate Curator, and the Senate Librarian. Much of the history and legislative process of the Senate was shared

with the Pages. Theater outings were also arranged to CATS, Barrymore, and The

Nutcracker.

New equipment included a CD player and a LCD projector. A new textbook, Problem Solving Strategies, was purchased for math students to use. Software to be used

in Chemistry and Physics, the Calculator Based Laboratory for data acquisition and

analysis, was purchased.

The closing ceremony for first semester Pages took place on January 22, 1999.

New Pages arrived on January 25, 1999.

Summary of plans

Needs of the incoming Pages are assessed immediately and a schedule devised to

meet their needs. Foreign language tutors are obtained and field trips are planned

as time allows.

Attention will continue to be given to the suggestions in the accreditation report

of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Advanced Placement training for all staff who have not previously received it will be provided as recommended.

Staff development opportunities will continue to be utilized, particularly in content areas. All courses will be reviewed for curriculum improvement purposes and

materials used will be reviewed as well. Software will be investigated as a means

by which curriculum delivery can be enhanced.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides technical hardware

and software support for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with the Government Printing Office (GPO), the

Senate Computer Center (SCC), and the Senate Office of Telecommunications

(Telecom) on technical issues and joint projects. The Department provides computer

related support for the nineteen LAN-based servers in the Office of the Secretary

of the Senate (three Novell Servers; sixteen Windows NT Servers; a proprietary retail computer system in the Stationery Room).

Mission Evaluation

The primary mission of Information Systems Department is to continue to provide

a high sustained level of customer satisfaction and computer support of all departments with the Secretary of the Senate. Emphasis is placed on the creation and

transfer of legislation to outside departments and agencies. In May and June of

1998, department interviews, and goals were assessed, hardware and software applications were analyzed, and Year 2000 hardware evaluations initiated.

Improvements to the Secretary’s LAN’s

The Senate had chosen Windows NT as the standard network operating system

in 1997. The immediate support strategy in May of 1998 was to enhance existing

hardware and software support within the Information Systems Department, and

augment support from the Sergeant at Arms whenever required. The following chart

notes the installation of nine additional servers in 1998. The Office of the Secretary

Network encompasses approximately 380 users in the Capitol, the Senate Hart and

Dirksen Buildings, and the Page School. The LAN operating system is 84 percent

Microsoft based and 16 percent Novell based server software.

Department NT/PDC NT/BDC NT/Single Novell 4.x Totals

Information Systems .................................................. 1 1 1 1 215

Disbursing .................................................................. 1 1 1 1 .............. 3

Library ........................................................................ 1 1 .............. .............. 1 2

Printing and Document Services ............................... .............. .............. 1 2 1 .............. 1

Official Reporters ....................................................... .............. .............. .............. 1 1

Employment Counsel .................................................. 1 1 1 .............. .............. 2
261

Department NT/PDC NT/BDC NT/Single Novell 4.x Totals

Page School ............................................................... 1 .............. .............. .............. 1

Stationery Store/Gift Shop ......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 .............. 3

Senate Security .......................................................... 1 .............. .............. .............. 1

Totals ............................................................ 7 3 6 3 19

1 NT/PDC—Primary Domain Controllers. Systems Installed in 1998.

NT/BDC—Backup Domain Controllers. Information current as of 2/18/1999.

2 Q2/99.

Support staff of the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary continue to work closely

together to support the current LEGIS system, and take an a more active role in

the current LIS project. In September of 1998, the Amendment Tracking application

was removed from the Secretary’s NT Primary Domain Controller. A separate Windows NT Server was added to the Secretary’s LAN, the hardware and software was

configured by Secretary staff members, and working with SAA support personnel,

an updated version of Amendment Tracking software was installed in August 1998.

Several additional resources were made available for use by the Secretary staff;

laptop computers for remote dial-in access to the Secretary’s LAN, access software

to manage NT servers remotely, and laptop upgrades for the Legislative and Bill

clerk to utilize on the chamber floor.

Several departments have had repetitive tasks automated using the macro

scripting language in Word Perfect. For the most part, these macros are in place

to simplify the Windows95 operating system. These macros were designed to copy

and transfer files from one folder to another. These scripts can be replaced by providing staff members with a additional training in Windows95.

Several Departments, namely Disbursing, Office of Public Records, Chief Counsel

for Employment, Page School, Senate Library, Senate Security, and Stationery/Gift

Shop have dedicated systems administrators and NT servers installed. In most

cases, the separate systems hold unique applications, and isolated LAN’s are set up

for security reasons. Information Systems continues to provide hardware and software support for these department as required and assist in project upgrades.

Disaster Preparedness Plans were established to protect software media in 1998.

Information Systems now utilizes a fire proof safe to properly secure and store software media.

Captioning Services (ST–54)

The Official Reporters and Captioning services departments utilize a separate

Novell server. They use specialized software called Computer Aided Transcription

(CAT) for translating their steno code into English. In June of 1998, beta software

was evaluated as a possible replacement for the older Xscribe CAT software. Also

in 1998, the Compaq DOS based clients were dual-configured with Windows95,

verified as Y2K compliant and in July 1998 the internal clocks moved forward to

the Year 2000.

Closed caption information was then sent to the Senate Recording Studio. While

the current operation is qualified as Y2K compliant, there are several minor constraints, namely file naming conventions that must be used in 2000. New hardware

and software will be installed in 1999 as soon as replacement software is available.

Official Reporters of debates (ST–41/44)

The Reporters and Captioning personnel utilize the same caption software, with

the exception that Captioning Services sends encoded output to the Senate Recording Studio, and Reporters send WordPerfect files to the Government Printing Office.

GPO Detailees add at the final stage, added code for MicroComp formats prior to

transferring the files to GPO. The Reporters are the only office currently who do

not run Windows95 environments. In March 1999, the Reporter software is being

upgraded to allow a dual-boot operation between Xscribe and normal Win95 applications. This operation has been tested previously in Captioning Services.

The Senate Gift Shop LAN (in two separate locations)

At the request of GAO, for security reasons, the Gift Shop LAN and the Stationery LAN must be isolated from each other and neither connected to the Secretary’s LAN. The Gift Shop LAN houses the inventory and transaction records for

the Gift Shop. In August of 1998, an NT Server was installed by Info systems staff

as a Primary Domain controller. Working with Telecom, SAA, and Stationery staff

and consultants, the necessary fault-tolerant components were installed, and networking requirements identified to replace the current MAI mainframe. In Decem-
262

ber 1998, Info systems staff developed a standard software template, and procedure

to install new NT clients. The current schedule is to replace the existing MAI mainframe and all existing PC’s in Q1/99 with Y2K compliant hardware and software.

Y2K Testing will commence in Q2/99.

The Page School LAN

The Page School currently has a Windows NT LAN, server version 3.51. This software version will be upgraded to version 4.0 in 1999. Additional hardware and software scanning capabilities were added in September 1999. Typical users include the

administrative staff, teachers, and students. Administrative staff use the Blackbaud

program for students records and grades. These records are confidential. In 1998,

a new systems administrator joined the Page School, and networking protocols were

established to administer this NT Server by Info system staff remotely from the

Capitol. This adds quicker response to support questions and problems as they

arise.

The Office of Senate Security LAN

The Office of Senate Security inventories and tracks all classified information that

comes into the Senate. In the Fall of 1996 their system was completely upgraded

from a Novell system to a new Windows NT LAN with top-of-the-line equipment

and a new Document Management System was purchased. For security reasons, the

computer systems in Senate Security cannot be connected to any other system in

the Senate so two PC’s connected to the Secretary’s LAN (and not to their LAN)

have been installed so that staff can have access to cc:mail and the INTERNET.

Cc:mail upgrades were performed to bring the client version up to at least version

6.x.

The Senate Disbursing Office LAN

By the end of September 1998, during the second hardware installation phase,

fifty new Windows95 clients were installed in Disbursing. No additional changes

have occurred with respect to the NT Server operation. Also in September, Info system staff resources were allocated to assist with the installation of client software

for all member offices. In October 1998, staff analyzed the NT servers and found

the following; One Primary Domain Controller (Doves) running SQL database is installed in its own domain called \\DO1–SQL\Doves. A second Primary Domain Controller is called \\SCC–DO\DO1. The later authenticates all standard user account

logins, while the Doves Server supplies the SQL database information for client

connectivity. The issue is simply that Windows NT thinks that both servers have

the same hardware identification. Additionally, a software trust relationship must

be intact for users to gain accessed to Doves. Should the trust relationship decay,

network resources are lost. Meeting with SAA customer support and the Disbursing

system administrator in November 98, an upgraded NT server hardware configuration was identified and ordered from SAA. On February 17, 1999 the upgraded NT

server was installed in the DO. Additionally Windows NT server software was reinstalled on the Doves server correcting the above problems. With this initial phase

complete, the remainder of the project involves adding application and printing services to the new NT server, and retiring the original server. This process in on-going

and will be accomplished in Q2 of 1999.

The Office of Public Records (OPR)

OPR uses FileNet, a UNIX-based document management and imaging system, for

maintaining public records such as lobbying forms; campaign finance reports; and

financial disclosure reports. PC’s are available to the public for searching, viewing,

and printing these documents. These six patron systems are scheduled to be replaced in Q2/99. The FileNet workflow system includes scanning the original document into the database, inputting some data regarding the document, and then

microfilming it for archival purposes.

A working group had been established to tackle the many issues currently facing

OPR, including: upgrading the System Hardware and the FileNet; In Q3/98 the

server software was upgraded to NT4.0, allowing the FileNet application software

to be ported to the next higher Y2K compliant version.

Bill Clerk (S–123)

After an existing ATS software glitch caused a major system error to the Secretary’s NT server in July 1998, a replacement Amendment Tracking server was installed in August with upgraded software to index and print amendments processed

by the Bill Clerk. This server now resides in ST–58 and is monitored by SOS for

correct performance during peak work periods. Scanned amendments are processed

automatically by the Bill Clerk and personnel in the Copy Center, and printed via
263

the network to the Enrolling Clerk, and Daily Digest. Network Printers were also

allocated and tested for amendment printing in the Reporters office. Amendments

are then previewed and committed and sent via the Senate Fiber Network for posting on the Senate Web server.

Enrolling Clerk (S–139)

In May of 1998, the Government Printing Office, in conjunction with the Senate

Office of Legislative Counsel, moved Senate legislative documents from a DEC-VAX

mainframe located at GPO, to a secure HTTP Web server located at SOLC. A separate DECNET PC client which previously used DECNET LAT Services networking

protocol, was replaced with a Windows95 Netscape client to retrieve information directly from SOLC. The DEC Mainframe was still utilized until July 1998, when it

was disconnected at GPO. In August 1998, separate FTP accounts were established

at GPO to insure that the Enrolling Clerk can retrieve documents from GPO, Senate

Legislative Counsel, and the House Enrolling Clerk offices.

Journal Clerk (S–135)

With the disconnection of the DEC mainframe noted above, the Journal Clerk

could no longer retrieve the previous days Congressional Record from GPO. After

several meetings in August, new networking accounts were established to transfer

files electronically from the Senate to GPO. Effectively, file transfer protocol via the

CAPNET ETHERNET/INTERNET are now used in place of the previous DEC-NET/

Novell proprietary gateways. A non-Y2K compliant PC was replaced and upgraded

in the Journal Clerk office in September 1998, and now files can be viewed for accuracy before they are transferred from GPO. In the past no error correction was in

place.

In December 1998, beta testing continued for replacing the ‘‘ two PC’s’’ for every

clerk to one single Windows95 client that will execute WordPerfect and Ventura applications to produce camera-ready Journal output to be sent to GPO for publication.

Morning Business/Daily Digest/Official Reporters

On July 30, 1998 when GPO disconnected the SOLC DEC VAX mainframe at

their facility, all Senate legislation file transfers stopped. It was not clear to either

SOLC or GPO, that this would happen. Reporters, Daily Digest, and Morning Business files were sent via floppy diskette to GPO for processing. During the August

recess, working with SAA and GPO, individual FTP accounts were established for

Morning Business, Daily Digest, and Reporters. By activating separate accounts at

GPO for each department, files are now transferred electronically and verified at the

time of transfer. Log files are verified and track each electronic transfer. The older

SOS gateway was replaced with a standard Windows95 client, running FTP across

CAPNET. This new gateway process is verified as Y2K compliant. In the event of

a gateway failure, files can be manually transferred from any FTP client running

Windows95.

Senate Library (S–332)

The primary support goal for the Senate Library was to upgrade and replace all

existing hardware and software prior to the Library move in January 1999. In December 1998, staff replaced all Library Windows workstations with 25 Win95 PC’s,

added a NT4.0 Server, and implemented improved network printing for the Senate

Library. Only eight of the 25 personal computers required to be purchased new; the

remainder were procured simply by cleaning house. During the period of May-August, approximately 21 Compaq Deskpro Workstations were refurbished, software

reinstalled, and application software upgraded for the Library. This represent a cost

savings of approximately $35,000. Datatrek replacement software was purchased to

meet Y2K compliancy. Data conversions are expected to be completed in Q1/99.

Printing and Document Services (SH–B04)

In April 1998, SAA contracted Wang to install a new server for Printing and Document Services. Wang installed the NT server as a Secondary Domain Controller

to the Secretary LAN and transported the hardware to Postal Square for further

engineering. In July 1998, at the request of SAA, Info Systems reviewed the ongoing

project to determine the exact levels of operating system software, and met with

OPDS and SAA personnel to outline future support requirements. At that point it

was determined to reinstall the NT system software, reload Microsoft SQL Server

software, and establish a conduit in order to test links between Printing and Document Service and the developing engineers at Postal Square. Those items were accomplished in August 1998. At this point, project completion is estimated in Q2/Q3

1999 with the transfer of this server to Printing and Documents Services. There
264

1 Named Chairman for Morelia conference only. Senator Hutchison unable to attend.

may be tethers to the existing LIS project, and those links will require further discovery.

Presently, on-demand printing is accomplished utilizing a Xerox Docutech printing system. A duplicate system is installed at GPO. File transfers are shared between these two systems to send documents to OPDS. The existing operating system

and installed hardware at OPDS is not Y2K compliant. GPO will replace non-compliant hardware and software for the Docutech in Q2/1999.

Historical Office (SH–201)

One significant addition to the Historical Office in 1998 was the added capability

to edit changes made to the Bibliographic Directory of the United States Congress.

This web site directory (http://bioguide.congress.gov) provides all bibliographic information from 1774 to present. Senate historians now have the added features to edit

and revise the database. Bibliographic information is available to all internal Senate

web clients who require information on any specific Congressional member. The necessary SQL client software was installed and network protocols were establish to

accomplish this task.

Year 2000 Department Status

One of the primary goals of the Information Systems Department within the Secretary Office is to insure Year 2000 readiness and compliance for all installed hardware and software systems.

Beginning in May of 1998, in conjunction with the Sergeant of Arms Y2K Project

Office, the Mitretek Group performed a detailed assessment of all computer related

activity. This assessment did not include the ongoing LIS or FMIS project. Completed in December of 1998, this assessment provides detailed structure to those

mission critical functions and vulnerabilities.

During this same time frame, and in parallel with this assessment, all personal

computers were either updated and/or replaced with compliant hardware. Most importantly the outdated network transfer method of moving legislation from the Capitol to the United States Government Printing Office was replaced. Legislation is

now transferred electronically via a Y2K compliant gateway to GPO.

At present Y2K compliance is mandatory for all new projects. The Legislative Information System (LIS), which is composed of the Document Management System,

Amendment Tracking, and Committee Scheduling will replace the current LEGIS

mainframe application in August of 1999. The Financial Information System (FMIS)

application consists of two modules, FAMIS and ADPICS, are deemed compliant and

in present use in Disbursing, SAA, and the Secretary’s Office. Other major projects

include the replacement hardware and software for the Office of Printing and Document Services, and the MAI mainframe replacement in Stationery/Gift Shop. OPDS

is scheduled for completion in August 1999, and Stationery completion is targeted

for April 1999.

As of February 1999, over 450 systems within the Office of the Secretary have

been inventoried and assessed for Year 2000 compliance. Software packages that require revision upgrades have been purchased to replace existing applications. Efforts are underway to test existing applications in March 1999. COTS software testing will include Corel Suite 8 applications, CC:MAIL, and FTP File transfers to

GPO. Every system currently in production passes the YMark200 diagnostic test

which establishes next century operation.

INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES—TRIPS 1998

January 5–11, 1998—Codel Lott: Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and

Mexico (Senators Lott, Murkowski, Breaux, DeWine and Roberts).

January 11–21, 1998—Codel Domenici: England, Germany, Switzerland and Brussels (Senators Domenici, Nickles, Abraham and Hagel).

May 14–18, 1998—Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group: Nantucket, Massachusetts. Chairman: Senator Murkowski. Vice Chairman: Senator Murray. (Senators

Murkowski and Grassley).

May 22–27, 1998—North Atlantic Assembly: Spring Meeting. Barcelona, Spain.

Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice Chairman: Senator Biden. (Senators Roth and Hutchinson).

May 23–31, 1998—Codel Nickles/Lieberman: Israel, Cyprus and BosniaHerzegovina. (Senators Nickles, Lieberman and Reed).

June 19–21, 1998—Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group: Morelia, Mexico.

Chairman: Senator Roberts.1 Vice Chairman: Senator Dodd. (Senators Roberts and

Sessions).
265

June 27-July 5, 1998—Codel Domenici: France and Russia. (Senators Domenici,

Thompson and Grams).

November 2–13, 1998—U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: Buenos

Aries, Argentina. Chairman: Senator Hagel. (Senators Hagel, Kerrey and Enzi).

November 9–20, 1998—North Atlantic Assembly: Fall Meeting. Scotland, Poland,

Lithuania and Denmark. Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice Chairman: Senator Bumpers. (Senators Roth, Bumpers, Hatch, Warner, Grassley, Mikulski, Akaka, Thompson, Hutchinson, Sessions, Gordon Smith and Enzi).

December 10–12, 1998—Codel Domenici: Honduras and Nicaragua. (Senators

Domenici and Frist).

INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES—OFFICIAL FOREIGN VISITORS—1998

January 13—Dr. Ali Mohamed MATAR, Bahrain official (1).

January 15—Mr. Banzragch ODONJIL, Mongolian official (1).

January 21—H.E. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (10).

January 30—Malawi Officials (2).

February 4—Mr. Wei Jingsheng, Chinese dissident (5).

February 5—Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (6).

February 10—H.E. Jaroslav SEDIVY, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Czech Republic

(7). H.E. Laszlo KOVACS, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hungary. H.E. Bronislaw

GEREMEK, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland. Mr. Karel Kovanda, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Czech Republic.

March 2—Mr. Giuseppe Lumia, Member of Parliament, Italy (1).

March 3—USIA Foreign Policy Group (23).

March 4—Kouassi Gahoun HEBGOR, Member of Parliament, Toga (1).

March 11—Japanese Parliament Staff Members (3).

March 12—H.E. Chuan Leekpai, Prime Minister of Thailand (9).

March 18—H.M. Hussein I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (4).

April 8—Yemen Parliamentarians (5).

April 29—Bangladesh Parliamentarians (4).

May 5—Mr. John Brogden, Member of Parliament, Australia (1).

May 6—Russian Federation Council (8).

May 7—Professor Romano Prodi, President of Italy (8).

May 12—Ukrainian Official (1).

May 14—H.E. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (10).

June 1—Hungarian Officials (4).

June 3—Chinese Legislators (8).

June 4—Bosnian Parliament Staff (4).

June 24—European Parliament (12).

June 25—Yugoslav Member of Parliament (1).

July 9—Croatian Political Leaders (6).

July 9—H.E. Jerzy Buzek, Prime Minister of Poland (6).

July 14—Kazakhstan Parliamentarians (4).

July 17—Moldovan Parliamentarians (4).

July 31—Multi-Regional Group (18).

September 17—H.E. Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic (7).

September 15, 18—Mr. Neil Bessell, Member of Parliament, Australia (1).

September 17—Members of Israeli Knesset (4).

September 22—Korean Government Officials (15).

September 25—His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud,

Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (12).

October 7—Mr. Suen-ming Chiang, Ministry of Justice, Taiwan (1).

November 4—H.E. Dr. Janez Drnovsek, Prime Minister of Slovenia (7).

November 9—Guyana Member of Parliament (1).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY S. WINEMAN

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your Committee, the

Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2000 budget estimates for the Senate have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2000. 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 $565,567,000, which reflect an increase of $50,876,000, or 9.88 percent

over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999 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 1999 are
266

$514,691,000. 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 2000 are divided into three major categories

as follows:

Senate Items .......................................................................................... $97,540,000

Contingent Expense Items .................................................................... 420,053,000

Joint Items of the Senate ...................................................................... 47,974,000

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 2000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $21,601,500 increase in administrative expenses and capital assets, primarily attributable to the request of the Sergeant at

Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate; (2) $13,434,000 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 increase in the Administrative and Clerical

Assistance Allowance authorized by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,

1999; (3) $11,422,000 for the anticipated 3.9 percent cost of living increase for fiscal

year 2000, and the annualization costs of the fiscal year 1999 cost of living adjustment; (4) $2,805,500 for personnel adjustments other than the cost of living, attributable primarily to the budget request of the Sergeant at Arms and the budget request of the Capitol Police; (5) $1,895,000 increase in agency contributions applicable to the cost of living adjustments and other personnel increase requests; (6)

$202,000 decrease in the request for the Joint Committee on Printing, for which no

fiscal year 2000 request for funding was submitted; (7) $80,000 decrease in requests

for overtime.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the Budget of

the United States Senate for fiscal year 2000.

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. I am going to ask you

an unfair question, but it pops into my head listening to you. Do

you have any idea when the visitors center might be completed?

Mr. SISCO. That is a good question. I believe that the Architect

has proposed, or is in the process of proposing to the House and

Senate committees that he is currently reporting to, a schedule

that would complete the visitor center by 2004.

That would be his best case scenario, as I understand it, given

no delays in the decisionmaking processes. I believe that to meet

that goal he has requested a streamlined structure to get answers

at the appropriate stages along the way of planning and designing

and constructing it, so there will not be any undue delays.

I believe he has testified before the House Appropriations Committee that if that is not done it could be as late as 2008, or 2009,

for the visitor center to be completed.

Senator BENNETT. I would have to run for reelection to be around

for that one. [Laughter.]

Mr. SISCO. But I do think he can—if we all work together, if the

plan that was anticipated in the 105th Congress is approved by the

106th, and if the Architect is given some streamlined decisionmaking apparatus, where he can move along in the decisionmaking

process while at the same time the House and the Senate leadership and committees have oversight over how the project is going—

then I think it can become a reality by 2004.

FMIS—PROCESSING OF VOUCHERS

Senator BENNETT. Now, the Disbursing Office has done an outstanding job, in my opinion, in picking up the FMIS project and
267

producing some new financial systems. This is a tremendous undertaking. You and your team deserve a great deal of credit for it.

When you undertake a job of this magnitude you always run into

some glitches, and the press has complained about slowness in paying vouchers. I want to give you the opportunity to respond to that

and tell us where we are.

Mr. SISCO. I will make just a brief comment, and then I would

like Tim to address it also. There is no question that within the

Office of the Secretary and the Disbursing Office we got behind in

the payment of bills, especially during the latter part of the year

when we were bringing on the new system.

The people who were running the existing system were helping

to design the future system and implement the future system, had

the expertise to do that, and had to do that, so they were on overload and we did get behind, and we apologize to the individual offices where that occurred.

To Tim and his team’s credit, that was short-lived, and we are

now paying our bills for the Senate Member offices and committees

within 14 days.

I would say this, in the spirit of making sure we all get bills paid

on time, that we can pay them within 14 days from the time that

they reach the Disbursing Office. We have sent out word to the individual offices and committees, so that there not be any undue

delay from the time that the vendor sends them the bill, maybe at

the State office, to the time that it makes it to the office up here,

and then comes to the Disbursing Office. We have a small window

of opportunity to pay those within, say, a 30-day cycle, so we do

ask everyone’s cooperation on that.

Mr. WINEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we did have some

difficulties in the fall in implementing the new system. Not only

was it a new system, warranted to be year 2000 compliant, and replacing a significant number of systems that were not, but we

changed all of the accounting processes and classifications as we

converted to the standard Government general ledger and the

standard OMB classification expense categories, and moved from a

cash-based accounting to an obligation and accrual basis.

The training, the acceptance testing, and the tight schedule we

were on were because we felt it extremely important to implement

at the beginning of fiscal year 1999. We knew with the magnitude

of implementing the new system and the other accounting changes

that there would probably be some difficulties, and we wanted to

address those now at the beginning of this fiscal year, as opposed

to having them wait until fiscal year 2000 with a very small window.

As a result, we did get behind. Every accounting transaction had

to be rewritten, and with some of them there were difficulties that

we had to work through. There were some significant system performance problems as we worked with the system longer and put

more data into the system, and we did cause some hardship to

Member staff and some vendors.

I am pleased to say we have stabilized on the system performance side of the issues, and we have addressed most all the transaction-level accounting transactions that needed to be done in order

for us to pay all the bills.
268

As the Secretary has testified, we have been paying bills within

14 days of the date received in the Disbursing Office since the beginning of February, and the majority of those are even being done

within 7 calendar days. This has had a positive ripple effect

throughout the Senate offices. They are very much aware that their

bills are getting paid in a much more timely fashion, and I think

that to the extent that they can they are trying to get them in to

us maybe a little bit earlier than they might have in the past.

Our peak performance in our previous system was probably 3 to

4 weeks in paying bills, and not consistent. Now we are consistently paying the bills within the 14 days. That has been our mandate and our goal to do, so I am pleased to report that.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY BUDGET

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. We appreciate the fact

that you have only the COLA increase. Are you sure you can do

the job with no additional funds?

Mr. SISCO. Yes.

Senator BENNETT. I like that answer.

Mr. SISCO. I will amplify on that if you would like. We are very,

very comfortable that we can continue to provide services to the

Senators and the staffs and compensate our employees fairly and

on a merit basis for a job well done.

Senator BENNETT. Are FMIS and LIS both on budget and on

time?

Mr. SISCO. They both are. We have aggressive plans to complete them. We have about $3.4 million in unused funds that are available on LIS and about $1.6 million on FMIS, and so I am convinced, and all the people who advise me and who are doing this,

both inside and the outside contractor, believe they can do it within

budget, and I believe we are on time.

We have done a tremendous amount of work in the last year, especially since last May or so, but throughout the 2 years that I

have been here, I think the staff of the Secretary’s Office, in particular the Disbursing Office with FMIS and the legislative staff

with LIS, have done tremendous jobs with both of these systems

that have to do with Y2K issues and the technology issues in the

Senate.

And I also compliment the Sergeant at Arms and the staff in

that office for the cooperation that we are getting. We are really

working in a partnership, and in teamwork to turn the lemon into

lemonade by using Y2K to update from a technological standpoint

all the systems in the Senate.

But that is the long answer. The short answer is yes, I think we

can do it not only from an operational standpoint, but also from a

capital standpoint.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTION

Senator BENNETT. Very good. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here, and we appreciate all that you do.

Mr. SISCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

[The following question was not asked at the hearing, but was

submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the hearing:]
269

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTION

Question. The Committee commends the Office of the Secretary of the Senate for

saving $51,230 from the Congressional Printing and Binding fund by making available on line instead of printing bills ‘‘received’’ from the House. The conference report accompanying the Legislative Branch Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act requested the Secretary of the Senate to work with the Clerk of the House and the

Public Printer to evaluate ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of printing Congressional documents and to make appropriate recommendations. What is the status

of that effort?

Answer. The Office of the Secretary has worked closely with the Clerk of the

House of Representatives and the Public Printer to develop a Standard Generalized

Markup Language (SGML) for the Senate and House of Representatives. SGML will

transmit legislative documents to the Government Printing Office (GPO) in an electronic form ready for printing, with little need for manual processing. By replacing

tasks that GPO must now perform manually, SGML will produce significant cost

savings in congressional printing.

The most recent report of the status of SGML within Congress is found in ‘‘Document Management System Status Report and Plan,’’ a report submitted on March

15, 1999, by the Clerk to the Committee on House Administration. Pursuant to the

directive of the fiscal year 1999 Legislative Branch conferees, the Office of the Secretary assisted the Clerk in gathering information needed to prepare this report.

In brief, SGML is a proven technology, first developed in the 1980’s and in widespread use in government and industry since the early 1990’s. By use of a series

of electronic codes, SGML takes raw text—such as the text of a bill or a committee

report—and electronically formats that text for further use, whether amending, publishing, distributing, or archiving. Almost all manual functions are eliminated.

The SGML Coordinating Committee, which sets overall policy direction, consists

of staff from the Offices of the Secretary and Clerk and the Senate Rules and Administration and House Administration Committees. Until the end of 1998, it was

led by staff of the Joint Committee on Printing. The SGML Technical Committee

reports to the Coordinating Committee and focuses on the technical efforts. The

Technical Committee includes staff from the Secretary, Clerk, and GPO, as well as

technical staff from the Senate Computer Center and their House counterparts, and

staff of other agencies including the Library of Congress and the National Archives.

The Office of the Secretary is currently recruiting an SGML professional to serve

on both the Coordinating and Technical Committees and otherwise give professional

direction to the SGML effort in the Senate.

At this time, the Technical Committee is at work on Document Type Definitions

(DTD) which are foundational to applying SGML to bills, resolutions, and amendments. However, as the first production-level SGML project, the Senate and House

jointly have issued the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 1774

to Present. This effort, now available at http://bioguide.congress.gov, was selected for

a ‘‘trial run’’ because the information is structured but not overly complex, and because it is highly useful to members, staff, and the public. GPO used this SGML

product to develop the capability to produce a typeset version of the Biographical

Directory, and the approach taken by GPO here will enable typesetting of future

SGML documents.

Within the Senate, the Legislative Information System (LIS) is reducing and will

continue to reduce printing costs. As Senators and staff gain greater familiarity

with the capabilities of LIS to access and print the text of bills and other legislative

materials from their desktop computers, demand for the GPO-printed versions of

the materials declines. On-line availability of bills and reports, together with

Docutech, which is a highly cost-effective means for the Document Room to print

additional copies of bills and reports without reordering from GPO, has allowed the

Office of the Secretary to reduce Senate printing orders significantly. Increasingly

in the future, LIS will serve to control Senate printing costs through better management of printing orders, and reduced associated costs such as storage and distribution.

(271)

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LORETTA SYMMS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS

DOYLE G. FREDERICK, CHIEF OF STAFF

CHARLES CICCOLELLA, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER C. DEY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. Our next witness is Hon. Jim

Ziglar, Senate Sergeant at Arms. We recognize and welcome the

Hon. James Ziglar, accompanied by Loretta Symms, who is wellknown to the committee.

This is your first appearance officially as the Sergeant at Arms

before the committee, and we are delighted to have you here. We

hear good things coming out of your office, and for the record, your

biography will be placed in the committee record so that we have

it as a part of the institutional memory of the committee.

[The information follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR

James W. Ziglar was elected the 35th Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the

Senate on October 15, 1998. He serves as chief protocol officer and law enforcement

officer of the United States Senate, and as principal administrative officer for most

support services provided to Senators and their staffs.

Prior to his election, Mr. Ziglar was a Managing Director of PaineWebber Incorporated in the firm’s Municipal Securities Group. He was a member of the

PaineWebber Operating Committee, the Municipal Securities Group Executive Committee and served as Chairman of the Municipal Securities Group Operating Committee. Mr. Ziglar had management responsibility for the National Infrastructure

Finance Group and the West Coast General Markets Group.

Mr. Ziglar has a total of 23 years of experience in the public finance industry as

an investment banker and lawyer. In addition to his experience in the private sector, Mr. Ziglar has worked in various capacities in the federal government. He

served as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science (1987–1988), in

which capacity he directed the operations of the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S.

Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Mines. Earlier, Mr. Ziglar served variously as

an aide to United States Senator James O. Eastland (1964–1971), as a legislative

and public affairs officer at the U.S. Department of Justice (1971–1972), and as a

Law Clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun (1972

Term).

Mr. Ziglar began his career as a lawyer in 1973 and joined the investment banking industry in 1980. During his career, Mr. Ziglar has worked as an associate at

the New York law firm of Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon (1973–1977),

a partner at the Phoenix law firm of O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover,

Killingsworth & Beshears (1977–1980), a Senior Vice President of Dillon, Read &

Co. Inc. (1980–1984), a Managing Director of PaineWebber Incorporated (1984–

1987, 1990–1998), and a Managing Director of Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated (1989).

Mr. Ziglar received his Bachelor of Arts and his Juris Doctor degrees from George

Washington University. He has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the

American Water Foundation, the American Energy Assurance Council, the National
272

Water Resources Association, the International Small Satellite Organization, Mercy

International Health Services, InterHealth Incorporated, the Landon School, and

the Harry A. Blackmun Scholarship Foundation. In the early 1990’s, Mr. Ziglar

served as a member of the Senior Advisory Group on Water Governance of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Recently, Mr. Ziglar served as

Chairman of the United States Senate Delegation to the National Summit on Retirement Savings. In 1988, he was the joint recipient with U.S. Senator Malcolm

Wallop of the Water Statesman of the Year Award from the National Water Resources Association.

Mr. Ziglar is a native of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and is a member of the bars of

New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia and Arizona.

Senator BENNETT. The Sergeant at Arms budget request is $116

million, which is a 23-percent increase over fiscal year 1999 and includes a request for 15 additional FTE’s, so we look forward to

hearing your explanation for that and justification, and you may

proceed.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here

in my role as Sergeant at Arms. I did have the pleasure of coming

here as chairman of the Capitol Police Board earlier this month,

and we appreciate your support.

I wanted to also introduce, in addition to Loretta, three other

people who are in the audience, Doyle Frederick, the chief of staff,

Chris Dey, our chief financial officer, and Chick Ciccolella, the chief

of operations who on a day-to-day basis makes things work.

I have submitted my testimony for the record, but I would like

to briefly expand and discuss some of the issues that you have just

raised.

First, I would like to do one thing, and that is acknowledge and

recognize the tremendous contribution that my predecessor, Greg

Casey, made to modernizing the Sergeant at Arms organizational

and financial structure. He did a terrific job and I think he deserves a lot of gratitude for that. I must say he certainly made my

job a lot easier. We are down the path on many issues that I would

have had to start had he not, and so I just wanted to put on the

record my appreciation for what Greg did in this job.

Second, I want to note in the relatively brief period of time that

I have had to observe the Sergeant at Arms organization, I am convinced it is a first-class professional organization, and I am quite

proud to be part of that organization.

Now, that is not to suggest that everything is perfect and that

we do not have challenges going forward into the future. We do,

and I have tried to define for my own agenda as Sergeant at Arms

what those challenges are and what I would like to address going

forward, and it really breaks down into four different areas.

The first area is obviously Y2K, and that is not just because you

happen to have a particular interest in it, but because I share your

view that it would not look good if the United States Senate found

itself crashed on January 1, 2000, when we have been preaching

to the rest of the world about getting its act together, so it clearly

is critically important, and the number 1 priority.

The second priority is, I believe we need to develop and execute

a policy and a methodology for keeping the Senate as up-to-date on

the cutting edge of technology, and this includes everything from

the paging system to the E-mail system to the document manage-
273

ment system. We simply need to keep pace with the changing technological environment.

The third challenge is to do a better job of delivering the services

that we are supposed to deliver. I think the Sergeant at Arms Office does a great job of it now, but there is always room for improvement, whether it is the technology side, or whether it is delivering the mail. We need to continually work at improving the efficiency of the delivery of our services.

Finally are the matters we talked about earlier in my appearance as Capitol Police Board chairman, and those are to enhance

the security of the Capitol, and to deal with important management issues in the Capitol Police Department.

In fact, tomorrow I will be going over to the House Oversight—

I think it is called the House Administration Committee now, to

testify on the Booz-Allen and Hamilton report that we just received. In fact, when I was here before I talked about our response

to that report and how the input from Booz-Allen can help define

the things we can do to make the Capitol Police Department a better police department.

I think I speak for the entire Sergeant at Arms organization

when I say we are committed to making this work, and meeting

these challenges as rapidly and as efficiently as we possibly can.

I would like to—if you are agreeable to this, I would like to go

ahead and discuss the overall fiscal year 2000 budget request, and

then come back to Y2K at the very end.

The budget request, as you pointed out, is $116 million, which

is up $22 million from fiscal year 1999, and that is due in large

part as a result of major capital items.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

[Dollars in thousands]

Description

Fiscal year— Fiscal year 2000 vs.

fiscal year 1999 1997

actuals

1998

actuals

1999

budget

2000

budget Amount Percent

Operating and maintenance expenditures .......... $83,628 $85,923 $90,654 $94,798 $4,144 4.6

Capital and related expenditures ........................ 14,048 10,400 3,662 21,337 17,675 482.7

Total ....................................................... 97,676 96,323 94,316 116,135 21,819 23.1

I want to look at this budget, or I have tried to look at this budget somewhat differently, I guess, than it has been in the past, and

put it into two components. Because of my business background I

want to look at the O&M budget, or if you will, the operating budget, and then the capital budget to see how we are performing and

where we are putting our money. Can we bring that chart a little

closer?

Senator BENNETT. I have a copy.

Mr. ZIGLAR. What we have done is, we have gone back to 1997

and broken it into an operation and maintenance expenditures portion and then a capital and related expenditures portion. What you

will see is that the capital expenditures portion up until, obviously,

this request, has been going down rather dramatically.
274

At the same time, our operating budget has been going up, but

it has been going up primarily due to COLA’s and merit increases

without a lot of other additional costs.

This year, in terms of the operating and maintenance budget, we

are asking for a 4.6 percent increase, and let me tell you a little

bit about what is in that; 3.4 percent of the 4.6 percent is attributable to COLA’s and merit increases, and part of the additional

15 people, but not the entire part.

The other part of that 4.6—1.2 percent—is attributable to the

commercial information services expansion and upgrade. It was a

question in my mind as to where we wanted to put that, but we

have treated the commercial information services project development as an operating expense in the past, so to remain consistent

we put $1.1 million into the operating budget for the upgrade of

the commercial information services.

Let me make one other point about the operating side of the

budget, and that is historically we have not put things like PC’s,

smaller equipment into the capital budget. They have been in the

operating budget. If we spent $10 million, let us say, on PC’s in a

year, that would show up in the operating budget. So there are

capital items of short-term duration, rapidly depreciating items

that are part of the operating budget, which would be somewhat

differently treated if you were in a business environment. That

would have something, I am sure, to do with the tax implications.

With respect to the capital component, as you will see, it had

dropped off through 1999, but we are now proposing an increase of

$17,675,000 in capital in order to make some big expenditures that

we need to make on the technology side, and I will get into that

in a few minutes.
275

Let me make one other point about the budget generally. We

have another chart here that I would like to show you, because I

think it tells a very good story about how the Sergeant at Arms Office has been functioning. I wish that I could sit here and take

credit for it, but I cannot, because I have not been here long

enough to take credit, so I will give credit particularly to my predecessor.

As you will see, the spread between revenues or appropriations

and expenditures has been rather wide in the past. However, in the

last few years we have gotten to the point where our expenditures

have been approximately 98 percent of the appropriation. So what

that tells me, is that a couple of things have happened.

One, we are getting better at budgeting, and second we are also

getting better at managing our revenues versus expenses at the operating level. And more importantly, what I have discovered is that

productivity obviously has gone up in the Sergeant at Arms operations, because we are doing a lot more things with the same basic

level of revenue as we have had in the past. Quite frankly, going

into year 2000, fiscal year 2000, what I see are a number of

projects at the operating level, service upgrades and things like

that, that we are going to be able to do and still maintain basically

that same revenue line.

So I am very pleased that we are doing so well in terms of running this operation. I think a lot of that credit goes to Chick, who

has done a wonderful job since he came in as the operating head,

and so I am encouraged about this organization and about its efficiency.
276

Going back to the capital component of the budget, as I mentioned, this $17 million increase intended to provide upgrades to

the technology infrastructure in the Senate, and it is driven somewhat by the year 2000 issue.

This budget, the capital budget, helps and supports the information technology strategic plan that was put together in 1997 and

was started, the implementation was started in 1998, so this is

part of trying to address the strategic plan and live up to it.

Even though it is in my written text, let me run through for you

the components of the additional $21 million that are over and

above last year’s request. $71⁄2 million can be attributable directly

to Y2K. Now, $31⁄2 million of it, or $41⁄2, I guess, would be specifically addressed to the non-mission critical part of the Y2K effort,

and I will show you where we are on that in a few minutes. That

is money that will be spent in the latter part of the year to try to

get all of our non-mission critical systems compliant.

There is another $3 million there that, quite frankly, is a contingency, and that contingency is dedicated to the mission-critical systems. Hopefully, we have planned it exactly right, and we know exactly how many dollars it is going to cost, but you never know

when you are going to hit something that is going to cost you more

money, and so we wanted to put a contingency in there.

Chick promises me we will never have to go into the contingency,

but I am going to ask him to come up with half of it if we do, but

we do have a contingency there just in case on the mission critical

systems, and hopefully we will be giving you that money back after

we go through this process

$31⁄2 million is used for upgrading the data communications systems, or the wide area network upgrade, and that is a project started in 1997. It is a 5-year project, and it has to do with communications between member offices, both at the State and Washington,

and committees, and it is a very large project but one that is moving on quite nicely.

We then have $4.4 million for the recording studio, and that is

broken into two components. $2.3 million of it is being used on the

first phase of creating digital technology in the recording studio.

Now, we need to do that for several reasons.

Number 1, the FCC has dictated that by the year 2005 or 2006

all broadcast will be in digital format, and so if we are going to continue to broadcast over C-SPAN the proceedings of the Senate and

the committees, we are going to need to be in digital format, so we

are going to need to start that migration.

Maybe even more importantly what we have here is an opportunity also to be more efficient in the way that we archive the proceedings of the Senate. We can actually send this in digital format

over to the Library of Congress, and to the Archives, and they can

record it on their disks, and we never have to make the tapes and

send them over there and store them.

And the third implication for digital technology is that, for example, if you have a committee hearing and you want to, in real time,

broadcast a piece of that, or use a piece of that, a staffer at a desk

could pull that off, edit it, and have it rebroadcast in real time. It

is an amazing technology, and it is something we are really being
277

forced to go to, but it is something that also will increase the operational efficiency of the Senate.

Just to let you know the magnitude of this project, over a num- ber of years it will be, we estimate, about $30 million to go completely to digital, and that includes lots of peripheral things, not

just the machines and that sort of thing. The second part of that $4.4 million is $2.1 million for robotic

cameras in committee rooms. As you know, four of our committees

already have robotic cameras that are operated from a central console over in the recording studio, and they are very unobtrusive.

They are also much better for security purposes.

We now have seven committees that have taken a liking to this,

and have requested robotics, so we have put into the budget for

this year $2.1 million that will be used to equip four of the committees and it is not that we are trying to discriminate. That is about

the limit of what we can get done in the fiscal year, because it is

not just putting the camera up in the corner. It is actually creating

a console room or a console area so that it can be controlled from

there.

Those decisions are going to be made in consultation with you

folks and with Rules. We are proposing that the committees with

the greatest demand for the service have priority, but that is certainly up to you and the Rules Committee. We will do what you

think is best.

We also, as I mentioned, have $1.1 million for the commercial information service upgrade. I have addressed that.

Another item that I do not think you would find anybody in the Senate that would disagree with, and that is, we have $1 million

in here for a new E-mail system. In the 4 months I have been

around, the E-mail system has been an interesting challenge at

times. What we are facing here is that cc:Mail, which is produced

by Lotus, is no longer going to be supported, and it is no longer

going to be upgraded, and so basically they are abandoning cc:Mail,

and consequently we are going to have to abandon cc:Mail. So we

are in the process of coming up with a new system that will be

more efficient for the Senate.

We also have in here $1.9 million for training, for human resources upgrade, and for contract management. Contract management is of particular interest to me, Senator, having come from a

place where we did do a lot of out-sourcing, if you will. I think the

Senate does not do as good a job as it should in overseeing the

many vendors that we have here in everything from negotiating

the contracts to managing the contracts to overseeing, making sure

that we get deliverables from those contracts, and the quality that

we need. I have been looking into that, and we want to upgrade

the contract management side of the business. That is where some

of these personnel are involved.

And then finally we have $2.4 million for COLA’s and merit increases, as I mentioned earlier.

We recognize that this is a sizeable increase in our budget, but

I think that you can see that these expenditures will, when they

are made, and these systems are put into effect, increase the operational capabilities of the Senate. We sure hope you will support

this budget request.
278

I would like to turn to Y2K, and I know you have been waiting

for me to get there. Let me give you my personal overview. I am

highly confident, not just confident, I am highly confident that the

Senate’s mission-critical systems are going to be fully capable of

dealing with the Y2K problem when we hit January 1, 2000, that

we are going to be in good shape.

When I first got here I got involved in looking at our process and

where we were and that sort of thing. I had to put that aside in

terms of the intensity of interest during the impeachment trial. But

as soon as it was over, I got back into it, and I can assure you, that

progress continued during the impeachment trial. Our folks were

doing their jobs very well.

But I got back into it as soon as impeachment was over at a personal level and even went to the point of personally having our

process validated, and I will explain that to you sometime if you

are interested. I feel very comfortable we are doing the right things

to get there.

Our effort, as you know, started in 1996, but we really did not

get started in an organized way until 1998, when the Project Office

was put together.

Probably the two most important things that we did, it would appear to me: one was to bring GAO in and to adopt their five-phased

approach to it—awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and

implementation—and we have been following that format very

carefully, and GAO has been a partner in this. They are looking

at what we are doing.

I actually had them come in and talk to me independent of the

folks in Postal Square, just making sure that I was comfortable

that we were doing the right things, and that they were comfortable.

The other thing that we have done that I think is very important

is that we have hired Mitretek to be a partner to help us manage

this process. I am—and you will find, Senator, I am a skeptic somewhat of outside consultants. I have never felt like you consistently

get your money’s worth from outside consultants, and so I will always be a little bit skeptical, but this is one where I feel very good

about the value-added of having Mitretek here and am very confident that their presence is a very big plus for us.

The whole Y2K thing I think has been a blessing in disguise for

the Senate for the simple reason that it forced or allowed the Senate to modernize its technological infrastructure, and I think it has

forced us to do it in a lot of ways.

Our approach has been not dissimilar to the approach that a lot

of Government agencies and other institutions have taken in terms

of how we approach this issue, and that is to define the missioncritical systems and the non-mission-critical systems. With respect

to the Senate, we had a three-pronged criteria based upon the business functions of the Senate.
279
280

One was legislation; it is obviously the business we are in. We

are in the business of constituent service, and we are required to

provide financial management in order to make the system work.

So we use that criteria to define what was mission-critical. Initially

we came up with 19 mission-critical systems, and since I have gotten here, we have gone through the process and have added three

more systems that I think probably needed to be on the list. We

now have 22 mission critical systems.

We have non-mission critical systems that we have defined, and

there are 43 of those, and those 43 were based upon whether or

not the Senate could continue to function if those systems did not

function. Now, we might not function well, and it might not be real

pleasant to function without some of this stuff if we went back to

hand ledgers, but the fact is, the Senate could continue to function,

and so we used that as the criteria, and there are 43 of those.
281
282
283

Without going into all of the details of it, if you will look at

that—and I think you have it in front of you, Senator—we are

doing quite well on the non-mission-critical systems.

In fact, while I guess there is no guarantee of this, I am pretty

confident that come January 1, 2000, that even our non-missioncritical systems are all going to be Y2K-compliant. Obviously, our

emphasis is on mission-critical, but we are doing a lot of work and

we are getting there very quickly on the non-mission-critical systems.

With respect to the mission-critical systems, of the 22 there are

8 now that are either fully tested, validated, ready to go, or very

near that. Of the remaining 14, you have the chart in front of you,

and as you can see, we are doing quite well. We have our deadlines

and I think it is realistic that we will meet them and be there well

before January 1.

I wanted to mention a couple of the systems that are there because they are of special interest. I will not talk much about legislative information and financial management, because you have

just spent a lot of time with Gary on those.

We are very comfortable with the legislative information system

status at the moment. We manage it jointly with the Secretary, as

you know, and our side of this is the technological side of it. The

amendment tracking system is up and running, the committee

scheduling system is up and running, and the document management system is getting near to being up and running.

Now, we are in the functional testing stage of the amendment

tracking, and the committee scheduling system, and we will, when

we hit the functional testing point on the document management

system, then start moving into the end-to-end testing for Y2K of

those systems. We are very comfortable that we are coming along

very nicely on that.

The financial management information system has already been

implemented and, as you know, is in the testing phase now.

The mainframe which is in front of you there, actually we are

further along on the mainframe than the chart represents, because

what happened was the delivery of the new computer was much

quicker than we thought. It is actually here, it is actually installed,

and we are actually in the functional testing phase, and we will be

moving to the Y2K testing phase very shortly. I am very pleased

about that, because that has lots of cascading effects on other

things we do around here, so we are quite comfortable with where

we are on the mainframe.

Another thing I wanted to mention is the Capitol Police radio. I

talked to you about that when I was here before as to whether or

not we were going to try to do a Y2K fix on that console or whether

we would go for a new one. After a lot of analysis, both financial

and operational, we have decided that the appropriate response

here is to go for a new radio console for a number of reasons: it

was going to be a reasonably expensive fix; this console is way outmoded, not being produced any more, and has a limited time left

on when we can get support for it; and maybe more important, it

has no redundancy in the system, so if it goes down, it is down.

There are lots of new modular type radio console systems that

are out there now, and so we are in the process of putting together
284

a bid package to find out which one we want to buy and which is

the most efficient to use.

The Senate paging system is something that I put down here.

Maybe in the big scheme of things it may not be all that interesting to anybody, but I find it interesting that we have a paging

system around here that does not work beyond 30 miles from here,

and considering the fact that you can take a pager and go anywhere in the world now and receive a message, it seems to me that

we are way behind the technological curve there.

We are in a bit of a dilemma. We have to make sure that we are

Y2K-compliant on the current system, but we want to move to a

new system, and so we are trying to fix the Y2K problem because

we cannot get completely to a new system by January 1, 2000, but

in doing that we are strategizing our movement to a new pager system, and I think that is really important. I mean, it is great to be

able to get a page in the Capitol Building, but if you cannot get

a page in Utah or Mississippi, what good is it, and so we are really

going to——

Senator BENNETT. I like it. [Laughter.]

If I get more than 30 miles away from here, they leave me alone.

[Laughter.]

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, in that case, Senator, we are not going to give

you a pager. [Laughter.]

Let me conclude about Y2K by saying it is probably unrealistic

to expect all of our systems to work, particularly the non-missioncritical systems, but I have to tell you that I do expect them to

work come January 1, 2000, and I think we are going to get there.

Hopefully, my optimism will be rewarded, but I do think we will

get there. We obviously are focusing on mission-critical systems.

We have to, and they will be there, and we are confident we are

going to be able to conduct business on January 1, 2000.

I would like to end my comments by making the point that the

fiscal year 2000 budget request in my view is an investment in the

future. The Senate is going to be well-served by improving its systems and managing the new technologies of the 21st Century, rather than being a victim of those technologies, or being at their

mercy.

PREPARED STATEMENT

At the Sergeant at Arms Office it is our goal to provide the best

service and the best technology available for the system while protecting the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate this opportunity, and I am anxious to answer your questions.

[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 2000 funding request for the Office

of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper. I am accompanied by: Loretta Symms,

Deputy Sergeant at Arms; Doyle G. Frederick, Chief of Staff; Charles ‘‘Chick’’

Ciccolella, Chief of Operations; and Christopher C. Dey, Chief Financial Officer.

Before I begin my testimony today, I want to publicly thank my predecessor, Greg

Casey, for a job well-done. During his two-year tenure, Greg engineered and executed a successful overhaul of the administrative and operating structure of the Ser-
285

geant at Arms organization. It was an overhaul that was much-needed and the Senate, in my opinion, owes him a debt of gratitude. He certainly made my job easier.

Since assuming the duties of Sergeant at Arms in November 1998, I have been

on a steep learning curve. The impeachment trial provided me with an opportunity

to witness how the Sergeant at Arms organization functions under the most trying

of circumstances. What I learned from this experience is that the Senate is blessed

to have so many experienced, loyal, competent and professional employees. The Sergeant at Arms operation is a first-class professional organization.

Although there are many significant challenges facing us in such areas as delivery

of services, technology upgrades, the potential Y2K problem, enhancing Capitol

Complex security and strengthening the management structure of the Police Department, much progress has been made in addressing those challenges.

My predecessor testified before this Committee on March 12, 1998 with respect

to the fiscal year 1999 budget and the initiatives he was then undertaking. Much

has occurred since that testimony. Among others: there are eight new members of

the Senate; we experienced the tragic loss of two Police officers; we have replaced

or made Y2K compliant over 3,000 personal computers; we have upgraded nine

major systems (Amendment Tracking System, Committee Scheduling System, Republican Vote Tally System, Senate Payroll System, Telecommunication Switches,

Local Telephone Service, Frame Relay Data Network System, Senate Fiber Network, and the Senate’s Secure Telephones) to enable Y2K compliancy (some are still

being tested and validated); we have brought online the new FMIS system; we have

substantially completed the reorganization initiated by Mr. Casey; and, of course,

we provided support for the historic impeachment trial.

As we go forward, we are focused on the major technology concerns of the Senate:

the Y2K problem, about which much more will be provided shortly; e-mail capability; member office mail systems; and continuing development of the Legislative

Information System, including the Document Management component of LIS, and

the Financial Management Information System. Also, as you know, we have begun

a program to replace and make entirely Y2K compliant all the personal computers

of members of the class of 2001, leadership offices and committees. We will provide

regular reports to the Committee on the progress of that program and related funding requirements.

On a matter that I know to be of interest to members and staff of the Committee,

I am pleased to report that the legislation implementing the new hair care revolving

fund and the requirement that we move to significantly reduce operating losses has

experienced some success. In 1997, the operating loss was $350,000; in 1998, the

loss was $275,000; and in 1999, we project the loss to be in the $150,000 to $200,000

range. We have put in place significant price increases and have adopted a commission-based compensation plan and reduced staffing levels. However, we face additional challenges with respect to this issue because of the difficulty in reducing the

loss further without significantly reducing the level of compensation and benefits of

the employees of the facility. As you know, we worked with the Rules Committee

to develop a plan that would allow the employees to remain eligible for their federal

benefits and to retain as much of their compensation as possible. While that has

been achieved, profitability has not. Additionally, we recognize that there remain

continuing concerns about the appropriate level of salary compensation of the staff

in the Hair Care facility. We will continue to work with this Committee and with

the Rules Committee to resolve this matter.

Our commitment to satisfy the many service needs of the Senate is based upon

the premise of constant and effective communication with those who rely on us for

a panoply of services. As you know, we established the Office of Customer Relations

last year to ensure that our Senate customers participate with us as partners in satisfying their technology and other service requirements. The Office of Customer Relations now is fully staffed and functioning and has been one of the real success stories of the reorganization implemented by my predecessor.

As mentioned above, the reorganization of our operations largely has been completed. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the new organizational

structure and changes will be made as necessary to better deliver services to our

Senate customers. I want to assure you that we remain committed to the goal of

providing the highest quality of service to the Senate consistent with protecting the

hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to devote a substantial portion of my testimony

to Y2K and related technology issues and initiatives. However, I would first like to

provide you with an explanation of our funding request and conclude my testimony
286

with an extended discussion, as outlined above. This request addresses important

near term issues and funds needed for future technology investments. Our Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 is $116 million, which is an increase of approximately $22 million from the current fiscal year. To put this budget request

in some perspective, it is helpful to analyze it in two parts. The first part would

be categorized as the SAA baseline operating budget, i.e., how does this budget compare with prior year budgets after excluding major capital items or one-time projects

or expenditures? The second part would encompass those items that reflect non-recurring major capital and related expenditures.

It should be noted that in three of the four preceding years, our appropriation has

been less than in the preceding year. In fact, since 1991, our budget has remained

flat or has decreased in all but one year. The last appropriation of this size was in

1992 when the budget was $120 million.

In the most recent two fiscal years, our obligations and expenditures exceeded 98

percent of our appropriation. We are consuming nearly all of our annual funding

and are maintaining a larger and more complex array of services, interconnecting

systems and technologies. What this indicates to me is that we are doing a better

job of budgeting and that we are increasing productivity—we are doing more with

the same level of resources. To illustrate my point, although our aggregate operating

and maintenance budget request has been increased by 4.6 percent or $4 million

over fiscal year 1999, that increase is reflected primarily in adjustments for COLA’s

and merit increases. Yet, if you examine the increased work load of fiscal year 1999

over fiscal year 1998 and you factor in our expectations that the workload will increase yet again as much in fiscal year 2000, the productivity gains are substantial.

To give you an example of increased workloads, we have documented the following:

through use of robotic cameras in committee hearing rooms, we have covered 12 percent more hearings; we also processed 30 percent more mail with fewer staff; introduced video streaming services over the wide area network to state offices; and expanded our commercial information service program.

The second part of our fiscal year 2000 Budget Request could be characterized as

the capital budget component. The current level of funding for the Sergeant at Arms

operation does not provide for the significant capital investments required for the

future. We are requesting an increase of $18 million for capital investments, to take

a necessary and substantial step toward building the kind of technology infrastructure necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This requested increase

is driven by the expected costs of completing our Y2K compliance project and by the

need to fund improved and expanded technologies in support of member offices and

committees.

To successfully meet future needs, we must think in terms of multi-year time horizons from concept to full-scale implementation. This budget request recognizes

both the increased demand for technological solutions to Senate office work problems and the requirement to plan in advance for the integration of new technology.

We must begin the funding and development process now in order to insure that

Senate needs in 2001, 2002 and beyond are met.

This budget request fully supports the elements of the Information Technology

Strategic Plan. The objectives of the plan are: Provide integrated information systems; provide our customers with responsive information technology and customer

support; provide an information technology environment that protects sensitive information and supports data integrity; leverage emerging technologies; and use best

information technology management practices.

In summary form, the requested increase consists of the following:

In millions

Funding for Y2K solutions for non-mission critical systems as well as a contingency to handle any problems that might occur with the mission-critical

systems ................................................................................................................ $7.5

Funding for upgraded data communications capability for member state offices (WAN upgrade) .......................................................................................... 3.5

Funding for digital technology for the Senate Recording Studio ....................... 2.3

Funding for installation of robotic cameras in committee rooms and associated control rooms .............................................................................................. 2.1

Funding for continued support of the recently upgraded commercial information and newswire services ................................................................................ 1.1

Funding for a new e-mail system and related products ..................................... 1.0

Funding for annual COLA and merit increases .................................................. 2.4

Other (training, human resources and contract management) .......................... 1.9

TOTAL ......................................................................................................... 21.8
287

We do not minimize the size of the requested increase. As can be seen above,

about one-third of the increase relates to the Y2K problem. We believe that the Senate is well prepared for Year 2000. However, no one can assure us that some still

unforeseen problems will not occur. Therefore, we must be prepared to make immediate repairs or replace systems which fail. We have included $7.5 million in the

fiscal year 2000 budget request for contingency funding for mission critical systems

($3 million); for funding for the completion of the remediation of non-mission critical

systems ($3.5 million); and funding for technical support for these continuing renovations ($1 million).

The Recording Studio has developed plans to convert all operations to digital technology in order to upgrade the quality of our production, to more efficiently provide

for the archiving and storage of recordings of Senate proceedings. This initiative is

expected to be expensive in terms of the initial equipment and installation costs and

will be funded over several years. The initial funding requested in the amount of

$2.3 million will enable the studio to begin studying, acquiring and testing the new

technology. A major benefit of this advanced technology is that it will allow immediate access to video recording of floor proceedings which will enable staff to view

and edit videos from their offices almost instantaneously. Digital technology offers

faster access to archived video; greater clarity and resolution; a more efficient transfer mode to the Library of Congress and the National Archives; and reduced physical storage requirements.

The Recording Studio plans to continue its placement of robotic cameras in committee hearing rooms. We currently have requests from seven committees for robotic

camera coverage. We have included funding of $2.1 million to equip four committee

and control rooms in our request based on the limits of our ability to provide for

the installation and testing of these systems during fiscal year 2000.

The Wide Area Network (WAN) Upgrade Project is an integral phase of the Senate’s overall five-year network upgrade plan which began in 1997. This upgrade will

enable member state offices to efficiently conduct Senate business by maximizing

the use of emerging and rapidly growing technologies. The WAN upgrade will enable member state offices to have improved WAN service capacity, capability and

quality of service. The goal is to enable the convergence of secured data, voice and

video communication services to state offices in order to leverage technologies such

as video streaming and multimedia. Our current wide area network infrastructure

is severely taxed in many state sites, and with the expanding deployment of Web

based and Web enabled applications, we anticipate a corresponding explosion in network capacity demands now and into the future. The Senate’s five year data network implementation plan was validated by an independent data network research

consulting firm in 1998. This group confirmed the soundness of the strategy of using

proven technology while protecting the Senate’s current investments. The firm also

verified that the proposed data network architecture is sufficiently robust, flexible

and adaptable for rapid growth as we continue to introduce new technologies to our

base services.

During this fiscal year SAA engineers are engaged in feasibility studies, research,

proofs of concept, design and planning activities associated with preparing for implementation of the WAN upgrade during fiscal year 2000. Preparatory network engineering to be completed during fiscal year 1999 includes: Identifying State Office

WAN applications, performance requirements and workload categorizing; matching

the appropriate WAN technology and services; Data Network Infrastructure Engineering and Cost Study; and Equipment and Service Vendor Procurement and Selection.

Current planning incorporates a combination of frame relay and Internet secured

virtual private networks as key underpinnings to the WAN infrastructure. Inclusion

of ‘‘last mile connectivity’’ technologies such as DSL/Cable Modem will readily enable high bandwidth multi-media services for the state offices.

We have included $3.5 million in the budget request for fiscal year 2000 for this

initiative. About $2 million in costs are for the purchase of higher capacity communications equipment and $1.5 million is for recurring usage charges.

During the past year, the Rules Committee requested that we expand the on-line

commercial information services provided to Senate offices to obtain a broader base

of ‘‘newswire’’ information on a real time basis, to allow more choice in the news

service offerings, and to acquire legislative information not available from LIS. The

expansion of these services adds about $1.1 million to our annual operating costs.

We are also seeking funding to replace our existing e-mail software. The maker

of our current e-mail software has announced that it will not develop its product

beyond the current design. We have begun a planning program to develop our email functional and technical requirements and will soon be in position to select a
288

replacement product capable of meeting our future needs. This adds about $1 million to our budget request.

We have included $2.4 million within our salary accounts for the annual COLA

and periodic merit increases. You may recall that last year we had all Sergeant at

Arms jobs evaluated and classified into a unified structure. Formal salary ranges

were established. Where necessary, we moved staff to the minimum of the new pay

scales. We expect that this classification structure with formal salary ranges will

help retain our qualified professionals. This funding request allows us to attract and

retain the high quality skilled workforce needed to maintain current service levels

and to implement the significant programs described above.

Lastly, we have included funding to expand our professional management training

program, to better support our human resources program and to greatly improve

our contract management capabilities.

Y2K UPDATE

I now would like to update this Committee on our efforts to ensure that the Senate’s mission critical systems are capable of operating in the Year 2000. At our hearing last year, we set forth the principles of our work to ensure operating capability

in the Year 2000. Conceptually, these principles address problem awareness, system

assessment and system renovation, validation and implementation. Today, I would

like to focus on the current status of our work.

The Year 2000 compliance project is perhaps the most important and pervasive

information technology project ever undertaken by the Senate. The issue facing us

is not the complexity of the Y2K technology solutions. Indeed, the solutions are

often the least of the problem. Rather, it is the daunting task of assessing each of

the Senate’s key business functions, determining where we are at risk, and then determining what it takes to implement and validate solutions. This task is made

more complex by having to balance our resources to ensure that all this work will

be accomplished in time without causing undue disruption to the daily business of

the Senate. Simply stated, the real difficulty lies in the size and scope of the overall

Year 2000 effort itself.

Efforts to address the Year 2000 issue were initiated within the Sergeant at Arms

organization in 1996. However, it was not until the formal establishment of the

Year 2000 Compliance Project Office in January, 1998 that a comprehensive approach was put into place specifically to guide Year 2000 related projects and monitor their progress. Our Year 2000 Compliance Project Office has assisted in defining the Senate’s overall direction in terms of program guidelines, operating principles, budgeting and reporting. The nature of the Senate environment, however, requires a highly decentralized execution in terms of assessing, renovating, testing,

validating, and implementing Year 2000 compliant systems. To assist with the total

project, a Year 2000 Master Plan was developed and has enabled us to intensively

manage our compliance objectives and assign accountability.

One of the first steps taken by the project office was the adoption of the General

Accounting Office’s 5-phase approach to Year 2000 project management. As this

process was being implemented, we also requested that the General Accounting Office appoint advisors with whom we could consult as necessary. I am happy to report

that our GAO advisors are key partners in our success on Year 2000 projects. Using

their analytical skills and consulting advice, as well as those of an independent onsite contractor, we have been able to augment Sergeant at Arms resources, determine the specific risks and vulnerabilities for our supported systems, and work to

mitigate those risks.

How were we able to get to this point? We looked at each information technology

system in use by the Senate, determined whether it was mission-critical, and assigned resources where necessary to develop plans designed to bring it into compliance. From assessment through renovation, validation and implementation, we required each system program manager to provide project plans, schedules and milestones. We set up a system to monitor and report progress centrally. As time went

on, it became clear that additional information was required and we instituted a rotating schedule of monthly briefings on each of the mission-critical projects. Because

knowledge and cooperation are keys to success in this endeavor, we have opened

these meetings not only to Sergeant at Arms employees, but also to the GAO and

the Secretary of the Senate. This exchange has paved the way to an open, cooperative forum in which disparate groups function in a fully participative and cohesive

manner.

Finally, I would add that throughout our Y2K efforts, we have used this enormous

challenge to make significant progress in the improvement of the Senate’s information technology infrastructure. As you will see from the discussion of our mission
289

critical systems, we have been able to bring the Senate forward in terms of modernizing our computer operations from the mainframe enterprise applications to the individual desktop work stations.

What are our mission-critical systems? How were they determined? Why did we

designate these 22 systems and how do they impact Senate offices? The Year 2000

issue is really a business problem more than a technology problem. Therefore, we

first defined the primary business functions of the Senate. Then we identified the

information technology systems required to support those functions. The top three

functions of the United States Senate were defined as: (1) the creation of legislation,

(2) financial management, including payroll, procurement, and accounting functions,

and (3) constituent services.

In addition to these three functions, we designated telecommunication services,

including both our voice and data networks, as also mission-critical. In fact, of the

22 mission-critical systems, nine are specifically related to the transmission of data

between offices both in Washington, D.C. and in members’ home states.

We also designated desktop computers, including both hardware and software, as

mission-critical. These systems support the day-to-day operations of member and

committee offices. The remainder of the mission-critical systems are those which

specifically support the key business of the Senate, that is, the legislative, financial

management and constituent services functions. Thus, the Senate’s mainframe computer, which runs important Senate and Capitol Police applications, is mission-critical. Similarly, the Correspondence Management Systems and the local area networks in every office, are mission-critical. We also designated electronic mail as a

mission- critical system.

Not every system in use by the Senate made the mission-critical list. In fact, only

22 of 65 systems were so designated. This is because the determination of missioncriticality was made after we asked the question, ‘‘Could the Senate continue to

function if a particular system was not available to users after the century

changed?’’ Often, the answer was ‘yes’ even if it meant that a ‘‘work-around’’ solution would need to be developed. As an example, could the Senate function without

an automated human resource system to track applicants and jobs? The answer was

yes. Would it be inconvenient? Yes, it would, but these tasks could be completed

manually until the system was remediated.

Now, what is the status of our mission-critical systems? Of the 22, three are considered fully renovated, tested and implemented. These are our telephone switches,

Frame Relay system and local phone service. A fourth, our long distance service, is

awaiting certification pending release of test results from a major telecommunications firm and a fifth, the secure telephones in many Senate offices and several

Committees, have been certified by the National Security Agency and we are awaiting their certification by GAO. A sixth system, the Senate’s Fiber Network, requires

only upgrades of the routers in the states and that is scheduled for completion in

April.

Two additional systems have been renovated and are completing their Y2K testing now. These are the Senate’s Payroll System and our mainframe computer on

which it operates. These systems are far along and we do not anticipate any setbacks. In fact, Senate staff can rest assured that their paychecks will continue to

be issued. Thus, of our 22 mission-critical systems, we can confirm that eight are

completed or nearly finished and will work in a Year 2000 environment.

The Senate’s Legislative Information System, or LIS, and Financial Management

Information System, or FMIS—two initiatives managed by the Secretary of the Senate, and for which we provide significant support—are currently being implemented

and tested at the same time. Underlying the new LIS are two feeder systems for

which the Sergeant at Arms has responsibility. These are the Amendment Tracking

System and the Committee Scheduling System. The Amendment Tracking System

is already up and running and the Committee Scheduling System is fully developed

and will be Y2K tested with LIS.

Correspondence Management Systems, which are heavily used in Member offices,

are also under intense scrutiny. Each of our vendors has been tasked to provide documentation on their Year 2000 compliance status and the test plans and test results

from their own internal Year 2000 efforts. In addition, we set up a separate laboratory at Postal Square for Sergeant at Arms technical staff to validate and confirm

the vendors’ test results.

With regard to the computer equipment in Senate offices, 32 percent, or close to

3,000 personal computers, have been installed and certified as Year 2000 compliant.

An additional effort is underway now to inventory, test and remediate all

upgradable older PC’s to Year 2000 compliance. Another initiative, a Special Year

2000 workstation and server replacement project for selected offices, has been approved by this Committee, and is underway.
290

As a note of interest, renovating computer hardware is relatively simple—you either upgrade this equipment or you replace it. The more difficult challenge is the

application software loaded on a workstation and whether it has been modified or

customized. Vendors can certify software as Year 2000 compliant based on their internal tests. However, many offices may use that software in such a way as to

render it non-compliant based on a calculation they may have entered or by changing the manufacturer’s intent of use. We are conducting a comprehensive inventory

in all Senate offices to give us a better idea of the risks we may face with this type

of installed software.

The fifteenth and sixteenth mission-critical systems actually include two similar

systems which are the Vote Tally Systems for the Republican and Democratic Policy

Committees. These are new products which have been developed and are being implemented and tested now. By the way, these RPC and DPC systems are a logical

back up, or contingency plan, for the Senate’s Legislative Information System.

The last six systems are the Radio System in use by the Capitol Police, the Senate

Paging System, the Group Alert, the Senate’s Electronic Mail, and two important

systems in use by the Senate Recording Studio. The Capitol Police will receive a

new Year 2000 compliant radio system which we expect to be installed and operational by the end of July. The current radio system is at the end of its operational

life and cannot be made Year 2000 compliant. The Senate’s Paging System is in

Y2K testing now. We plan to replace components which are not compliant and operate with the same system after December 31st. Additionally, we will take this opportunity to begin to plan for a complete replacement of the paging system to meet

future anticipated needs. The Group Alert system, which supports both the Cloakrooms, is being renovated during the next Senate recess. We expect to complete this

effort next month. The next mission-critical system, the Senate’s E-mail, is actually

a number of components which must all be made Year 2000 compliant. Then, each

component must be tested and the system as a whole must be tested. The major

component of this system is the office mail system or ‘‘cc:Mail’’ which is currently

being upgraded to the Year 2000 compliant version in all offices. The last two systems belong to our Recording Studio. These are the ‘‘Flexicart’’ system which enables us to record video tapes in a computerized manner, and the Senate Floor

Audio System which provides audio to the TV/Radio rooms and the Galleries. Both

systems are under contract with the vendors for Y2K testing. We will validate and

certify the test results ourselves.

We also oversee a continuous and comprehensive Year 2000 awareness effort to

keep Senate staff informed. To assist Senate offices with their own internal Year

2000 plans, a Senate-only Year 2000 web site has been created. This site contains

information on such items as how to test a PC for Year 2000 compliancy, which noncompliant PC’s can be upgraded to compliancy, and how to do the upgrade. The Web

Site also contains a software database with information on the compliance of software packages used on a regular basis within the Senate. In addition, a business

continuity plan template was recently added to allow Senate offices to develop a

plan for continuity of operations specific to their own environment.

In addition to the systems under the specific responsibility of the Sergeant at

Arms office, our interaction and interface with other Capitol Hill offices and other

federal agencies also are being investigated. We have conducted Year 2000 Vulnerability assessments for the Secretary of the Senate, the United States Capitol Police,

and this Committee. We have ongoing assessments in both the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Printing Office. We are conducting these assessments to

highlight risks from the Sergeant at Arms point of view as opposed to compliancy

reports on any of these entities.

These assessments have been invaluable. For example, the formal assessment of

the United States Capitol Police was completed in September. The summary briefing provided several recommendations for further USCP actions to minimize the

risk of Year 2000 failures and to prepare for recovery from failures should any

occur.

As of today, the Capitol Police are reporting ten of their 19 mission-critical systems as renovated, validated and implemented. These include their local area network, application servers, file servers, database servers, workstations, off site delivery application, reports processing application, physical security systems such as the

Metorex 200 metal detectors and PDS LAN, and the Intoxilyzer 5000. Other systems still under renovation include outside agency applications such as the National

Finance Center and CJIS/WALES/NCIC; the SafeNet System Software for physical

security, and applications which reside on the Sergeant at Arms mainframe. These

cannot be tested until our new mainframe upgrade is installed. Additionally, there

are the police communications systems which include radios, the central dispatch
291

console, and alarm and video monitoring systems. The Capitol Police have made

great strides towards completing their compliancy efforts.

The issue we are most concerned with is the replacement of the Capitol Police

radio dispatch console, which is being planned now. We intend to ensure that the

Capitol Police will continue to be able to communicate and dispatch officers on a

Year 2000 compliant console and provide the life-safety protection for which they

are responsible.

We are also concerned about the Senate’s paging system, also provided by the

same vendor. We are involved in intensive negotiations with the vendor to provide

the Senate with current and accurate documentation on this system.

I would like to say that every system used in the Senate will work and work well

in the Year 2000. However, that is unrealistic. Given the time frame and the number of systems and variables we face, it was prudent to concentrate efforts on those

areas deemed most critical to the Senate and that, in fact, is the hard decision that

was made. I am confident, however, in my ability to say that the Senate will be

able to conduct its business when the clock rolls over to January 1, 2000. This will

require a continuous and concerted effort on our part and will require cooperation

from the entire Senate, not just Sergeant at Arms employees. The effect of these

combined efforts will indeed enable the United States Senate to weather the approaching Year 2000 computing crisis.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal testimony. I want to express my thanks

to the Committee for its continuing support of the Sergeant at Arms and I stand

ready to respond to any questions you may have.

Y2K ISSUES

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. We appreciate the comprehensive analysis of where you are. You have obviously gotten a

good start and taken hold of an office that is very important to all

of us.

I am a little concerned about the late date on some of these Y2K

issues. The reason that I will accept your assurance that it is all

going to work is that in the greater scheme of things you are a relatively small operation. If I were getting these kinds of dates out

of the Defense Department or the IRS or some of the others I

would be very nervous.

The General Accounting Office has begun a program of leasing

their computers. This is a capital budget. Do you want to talk

about the possibility of leasing for the Senate offices rather than

purchasing?

Mr. ZIGLAR. It is interesting that you raise that question. I have

not yet raised the specter of that at the Senate office level, and as

you know, the obsolescence factor of computers makes leasing a

fairly expensive proposition. I have been, however, looking at that

issue in the context of the Capitol Police and some of their vehicles

and equipment that have a fairly lengthy lifespan. I have an interest in leasing, and as you know, in the right format it can be a very

cost-efficient way of going, particularly if the person providing the

vehicle has a tax incentive to do it.

So the answer is, I have not looked at that in the context of the

computers and equipment in the Senate offices, but it is something

I have an interest in and am looking at in the context of the police.

Senator BENNETT. I do not know if you are a devotee of C.

Northcote Parkinson, the author of Parkinson’s Law, but one of the

statements that he makes is that the amount of time spent discussing a budgetary issue is in inverse proportion to the size of the

budget. In other words, the typical business group will approve a

$43 million nuclear reactor in 17 seconds flat, or something, because no one understands it, but they will spend 5 hours debating
292

the coffee pot in the day room because everybody has an opinion

on that.

BARBERSHOP

At the risk of getting into that kind of thing, and where we

spend an inordinate amount of time talking about something that

is very low-level expenditure, do you want to talk about salaries for

the barbershop? [Laughter.]

Mr. ZIGLAR. I am very happy you asked that question, because

the amount of time that we spend on the barbershop, the hair care

services issue, is out of proportion to the expenditure. That is a

perfectly good example, I must say.

We have been attempting to reach parity, if you will, where the

barbershop shop is not losing money and it is carrying its own

weight. The hair care services, I am sorry. I come from where a

barbershop is a barbershop.

Senator BENNETT. I am sorry I led you down that road with my

question.

Mr. ZIGLAR. As you know, we have put it on a commission structure. We have changed the level of compensation for the barbers

in connection with the commission structure. There is still a lot of

unhappiness there about salary levels, at least among some of

those barbers there, and we are attempting to address it.

There are a variety of, two or three different ways of going about

this that we are discussing with your staff and with the Rules

Committee. In the final analysis, Senator, it is probably not the

most popular thing to say, but my view is this thing ought to be

privatized.

It ought not to be a Senate function, but that is just my own personal view of it, and I think they have done that over in the House,

as I understand it. I think it is working over there, and I would

in the long term like for us to be able to try to consider the option

of privatizing. In the short-term however, in order to maintain civility, we are looking at several options in terms of making adjustments so that people who have been here for a long time are not

suffering in their income as a result of our making changes in the

system.

So I think there is some equity, some fairness we need to bring

to the process, but in the long term I am not sure that this is a

function that the Senate ought to be in, but that is just my personal view, Senator.

Senator BENNETT. I will not add to the amount of time spent discussing this issue, other than to comment, if you want to talk about

fairness, I do not understand why I have to pay the same price that

the Majority Leader has to pay. [Laughter.]

Mr. ZIGLAR. I am not responding to that one, Senator. [Laughter.]

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. We appreciate all you

do, and appreciate your staff, and we will pay close attention to the

request you made. I think this is a responsible budget request, and

we will try to respond to it in a responsible way.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate

it.
(293)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

STATEMENT OF DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR

ACCOMPANIED BY:

BARRY B. ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

POLLY E. HODGES, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Senator BENNETT. Our third witness is Mr. Dan Crippen, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Good morning, sir, and

he is joined by Barry Anderson, the new Deputy Director of CBO,

and Polly Hodges, the Budget and Financial Officer.

As the Sergeant at Arms leaves he seems to be taking all of the

crowd with him.

Mr. Crippen, we welcome you to the committee. I understand you

assumed your position on February 4, and so this is your first appearance before the committee. We will submit for the record and

institutional memory of the committee a copy of your biography as

well as Mr. Anderson’s biography, and we welcome you to this most

demanding and essential kind of service upon which the Congress

depends so heavily.

[The information follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DAN L. CRIPPEN

Dan L. Crippen is the fifth director of the Congressional Budget Office. Mr.

Crippen, who was appointed in February 1999, has served in senior positions in the

White House and the U.S. Senate and is a specialist in issues relating to the federal

budget, health care, retirement, trade, and telecommunications.

From 1987 to 1989, he served as the President’s adviser on all issues relating to

domestic policy, including the preparation and presentation of the federal budget.

In the Senate, he served as chief counsel and economic policy adviser to the Senate

Majority Leader from 1981 to 1985, working on major tax and budget bills as well

as other legislation.

Mr. Crippen also has substantial experience in the private sector. Before joining

CBO, he was a principal with Washington Counsel, a consulting firm. He has also

served as executive director of the Merrill Lynch International Advisory Council and

as senior vice president of the Duberstein Group. Mr. Crippen has a Ph.D. in public

finance.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF BARRY B. ANDERSON

Barry B. Anderson has had a lengthy career in the federal government. From

1988 to 1998, he was the senior career official at the Office of Management and

Budget, where he directed the analysis behind and the production of the President’s

budget proposals. From 1980 to 1988, he held various management and analytic positions at OMB, and from 1972 to 1980, he was an economist with the General Accounting Office.

Before his appointment as Deputy Director of CBO in February 1999, he was a

vice president with the Jefferson Consulting Group. Mr. Anderson has a B.S. from

the University of Illinois, an M.B.A. from the University of Washington at Seattle,

and has done postgraduate work in econometrics at George Washington University.
294

Senator BENNETT. CBO has requested $26.8 million for fiscal

2000, which is a 4.5 percent increase over the 1999 level, which I

assume we will be told is once again with the COLA’s.

I will ask you the question that I do not ask anybody else, why

the COLA is 4.5 percent when inflation in fact is at zero, effectively, but that seems to be the way the Federal Government

works.

We welcome you here. We are delighted to have you, and look

forward to your testimony.

Mr. CRIPPEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be pleasantly brief. I

would like to introduce, as you already recognized, my Deputy,

Barry Anderson, and for the record want you to know that Barry

retired about this time a year ago from the Office of Management

and Budget after 18 years of service in the executive branch. Before that, he worked at the General Accounting Office. Frankly, if

he had declined my invitation to join me, I do not know whether

I would have taken this job. He is a very valuable resource and is

very knowledgeable about how these things work.

With your permission, sir, I will submit my prepared remarks for

the record and just spend a couple of minutes summarizing.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST

As you said, for fiscal year 2000 we are requesting $26,821,000—

an increase of 4.5 percent over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation.

That request funds our current staff ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions. We are not asking for any additional positions.

Personnel costs continue to dominate our budget, accounting for

86 percent of the request. Computer-related spending accounts for

8 percent, a historical low. Administrative expenses use up the remaining 6 percent.

In order to help offset the 6 percent increase in personnel costs

that we anticipate for next year, we plan to reduce spending for

automated data processing by 7 percent.

Mr. Chairman, as you said, I have only been at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) a few weeks, and I have discovered,

even though I knew something about CBO before I arrived, that

there is much more there than meets the eye. Just since February

3, when Barry and I moved into our offices, CBO has issued seven

major reports and studies, presented testimony to congressional

committees 12 times, and produced 58 cost estimates for proposed

legislation, all of that in the past seven weeks.

Mr. Chairman, sometime ago you also asked CBO to develop an

early-warning system to keep the Congress informed of fluctuations

in spending and revenue patterns, and I want to do a 30-second report for you. We developed our Monthly Budget Review, which is

widely circulated on the Hill and available on our Web site. It has

actually become one of our most popular products, judging from the

number of requests we are getting, and so it was a very good suggestion you made, and we are glad to have implemented it.

In fact, our products are now available on the Web and in hard

copy. Virtually the same day we issue a report, we also put it up

on the Web, and it has been a very popular site. Traffic is increasing daily.
295

PERSONNEL ISSUES: RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Now, Mr. Chairman, despite our apparent productivity, we face

a continuing challenge to recruit and retain top-quality professionals. Indeed, that is my biggest challenge. After we get through

the first few weeks of dealing with the President’s budget and the

budget resolutions, I desperately need to turn to this issue.

We are well below our FTE ceiling because we are increasingly

outbid in the job market. Although we understand that we cannot

radically alter our salary structure, we are seeking your permission

to offer bonuses for new hires and also to reward outstanding performance. Those bonuses will not entail additional appropriations

but rather a reallocation of resources. Our competitors both inside

and outside government have the authority to offer such bonuses.

Y2K STATUS REPORT

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention briefly where we are

on the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. As you know better than I, it is not

possible to predict the severity or duration of any potential Y2K effect. We are taking what I hope you will agree is a commonsense

approach. There is nothing in our mission around the first of the

year that is critical to the operations of the Congress.

Our first priority, as it must be for all agencies, is to ameliorate

the possibility of a localized problem that might hinder our ability

to access our computer files. Such a scenario would make it difficult for us to supply basic information to the Congress on a timely

basis. As insurance, we will maintain copies of all of our critical

data bases. For example, the CBO baseline—the primary tool

against which we measure all legislation and which we normally

complete in December—will be made available in both hard copy

and in several stored media forms. We will be able to use it manually as well as on computers.

We have a team that plans to be in the office on New Year’s Eve

to conduct a series of final tests. Live testing is the only way to

evaluate and respond to any problems that might arise; that approach will give us a few days if we need additional time to fix

things up.

As with many other agencies, our biggest vulnerabilities are

those in interconnections outside our purview. Fortunately, most of

our contact with the outside world consists of interconnections with

other Federal entities that are taking the same prudent steps and

that you are monitoring in this process. We do not rely on outside,

nonpublic vendors to any great degree.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss our appropriation request with the committee today. I would

be happy to address any questions you have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN L. CRIPPEN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the

fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs for making decisions about the economy and the budget and to furnish
296

the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process. CBO

does not make policy recommendations; instead, it presents the Congress with options and alternatives in a wide range of subject areas, all of which have economic

and budgetary effects.

I submit as an attachment to this testimony our latest Director’s Report on Work

Activities of the Congressional Budget Office, which we submitted to the Senate and

House Committees on the Budget in January. That report documents in detail our

major work products and activities during 1998 and our work plan for 1999. It also

includes a statement of CBO’s policies for preparing and distributing estimates and

analyses and lists the current membership of CBO’s Panel of Economic Advisers.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST

For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $26,821,000—an increase of 4.5 percent, or $1,150,000, over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation. That request funds our staff

ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent positions. We are not asking for any additional

positions.

Personnel costs account for the largest share of CBO’s budget—86.2 percent. Computer-related spending accounts for 7.5 percent, a historical low. Administrative expenses account for 6.3 percent, which is below our historical average. Specifically,

our request:

—Provides a 6 percent increase in spending for personnel, which comprises

annualized fiscal year 1999 pay raises, merit increases for fiscal year 2000 averaging 2 percent of pay, and a 4.4 percent across-the-board pay adjustment in

January 2000 (the increase in the President’s pay assumptions). The budget

proposal assumes that performance and recruitment bonuses will be paid for by

reduced merit pay raises and savings from staff turnover.

—Realizes a 7 percent reduction in spending for automated data processing (ADP)

and systems and for data and model development. That reduction includes

$100,000 in savings from moving the mainframe applications of CBO’s Tax

Analysis and Health and Human Resources Divisions from House Information

Resources to the Library of Congress. (That estimate contains no adjustment for

the possible relocation of four mission-critical mainframe applications maintained by the Budget Analysis Division.)

—Spending for all other expenses, such as utilities, printing, and supplies, increases by 2 percent. Price increases averaging 3.8 percent are offset by a drop

in the demand for spending in several areas, such as copier replacements and

graphic arts.

AREAS OF CONCERN RELATING TO CBO’S BUDGET REQUEST

Although CBO should be able to maintain its current workload with the funds requested here, the agency is increasingly concerned about its ability to offer the salaries and benefits needed to remain competitive in today’s tight labor market.

Most CBO employees are economists and other quantitatively skilled professionals, all of whom are in particularly high demand. We are finding it increasingly

difficult to retain our experienced workers, which is one reason that CBO’s merit

pay request for fiscal year 2000 is so important.

Attracting top-flight new employees is also a problem that could prove critical to

our work. Competition for top-quality Ph.D. economists is intense; thus, those economists now demand very high salaries. The limitations on the compensation we can

offer candidates have become a major impediment to attracting top talent. With increasing frequency we lose qualified people to employers who can pay more.

CBO operates at a disadvantage compared with federal employers that can provide locality pay raises and give lump-sum bonuses to attract and retain exceptional

workers. To help overcome that competitive disadvantage, we have requested the

authority to give bonuses using funds already in our personnel spending base. Those

lump-sum payments would be used to attract new employees and to reward outstanding performance. They would enhance CBO’s ability to compete with the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, other federal agencies,

and the private sector for professional and management talent.

If granted that authority, no more than 1 percent of budgeted payroll would be

used for recruiting and performance bonuses. At least 75 percent of the total bonuses awarded would be based on performance, and the maximum allowable individual award would not exceed 10 percent of the employee’s annual salary. Awards

to employees would not increase their base salary level and hence would not affect

contributions for retirement and life insurance.

Also, to relieve growing salary compression, CBO has asked the House and Senate

Budget Committees to raise the pay rates of the CBO Director and Deputy Director
297

by one level each. That change will be considered later this year as part of the

Budget Enforcement Act of 1999, as introduced on January 19 by Senate Budget

Committee Chairman Domenici.

Y2K STATUS REPORT

CBO is working closely with the General Accounting Office to ensure that all of

its ADP and associated computer systems comply with Year 2000 (Y2K) requirements, and we are making substantial progress. As you know, CBO relies on the

mainframe computer at House Information Resources (HIR) to run its database applications. CBO uses the HIR mainframe for a variety of analytic work, but the applications related to our budget database are particularly critical for providing timely support to the House and Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees. We use

those applications to track and analyze Presidential spending proposals and subsequent Congressional action. The HIR mainframe is the repository of the President’s

annual budget, CBO’s baseline projections, numerous data sets used by the House

and Senate Budget Committees in developing annual budget resolutions, and data

sets that track appropriation and other spending bills as well as associated CBO estimates of outlays.

Last year we shared with you our concern that the scheduled retirement of the

HIR mainframe in 2000 presented a complex and potentially costly challenge to

CBO because we would have to relocate our mainframe applications. But that is no

longer a Y2K issue. HIR has revised its mainframe lease so that the House can continue its mainframe operations through March 2001. We will therefore be able to

run our four mission-critical systems on the HIR mainframe computer well into

2000.

CBO is moving aggressively to ensure that the other computer systems used by

its divisions and individual employees are also Y2K compliant. CBO established a

Y2K test center with a network that runs compliant software and a 2001 system

date. Employees are testing all of their computer systems—not just those requiring

the CBO test network—to ensure Y2K compliance. To date, 90 percent of our employees have completed that reporting requirement. Roughly 10 percent of the systems tested have been found to be noncompliant, and those systems are being updated or replaced. Those actions will be completed, and all CBO systems will be

compliant, by October 1, 1999.

CBO participates in three interagency groups dedicated to Y2K planning and cooperation: the House Information Resources Y2K Action Team; the Legislative Data

Standards Committee—Y2 Task Force; and the Legislative Branch Y2K Business

Continuity Contingency Planning Group. In addition, CBO is coordinating with the

Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center to ensure that CBO’s personnel and payroll system will operate accurately in the new millennium.

APPROPRIATION TRACKING SYSTEM UPDATE

CBO is part of the House and Senate database exchange—the All Purpose Table

system—that tracks and scores actions for the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees. That system is now being updated and will ultimately be replaced by

the new Appropriations Decision Support System (ADSS). The Committees recently

instructed CBO to adopt the new system. Because no funds were provided in CBO’s

fiscal year 1999 appropriation for that purpose, I wrote to the Committee requesting

permission to reprogram $195,000 from personnel spending to equipment.

MANAGING CBO INFORMATION

As we reported last year, CBO’s documents are now available on the World Wide

Web (at www.cbo.gov) in four electronic file formats. In addition to its reports and

studies, CBO is making all of its general work products available on the Web, including papers and memorandums, testimonies, unfunded mandate statements, federal bill cost estimates, and special analyses such as the Monthly Budget Review

and reports on the current status of discretionary appropriations. In October, CBO

posted its 1,000th document on the Web site.

CBO’s Web site is designed to make the information it contains widely and immediately accessible to Congressional users and the general public. In developing the

Web site, CBO consulted with staff of the Congressional Research Service to ensure

that the site would be compatible with the Legislative Information System. More recently, CBO improved the cost estimates section to incorporate requests for specific

information from the staffs of the budget committees. The office will continue to

work with the Congress, and especially the staffs of the budget committees, to ensure that the Web site is as responsive as it can be to their informational needs.
298

Since it came on-line in August 1997, the CBO Web site has recorded almost 5

million hits from a diverse audience of users, including Congressional staff, other

government offices, news agencies, researchers, and students. More than 850,000

pages have been reviewed or downloaded by site visitors from 98 countries. Almost

10,000 requests for information are received each day.

In conjunction with development of the Web site and to improve CBO’s responsiveness to the Congressionally mandated Research Notification System, CBO has

designed and brought on-line a new management information system. It enables us

to identify and track the progress of CBO products from their initiation to their

completion.

The agency has also made substantial progress in processing its official documents

in keeping with the requirements of the National Archives and Records Administration. Those documents range from official correspondence and personnel files to the

full gamut of CBO reports, studies, papers, memorandums, and other products.

Within the past year, CBO has committed to permanent storage or has destroyed,

in compliance with regulations, approximately 25 percent of its file documents. CBO

anticipates continued progress in 1999 in fulfilling the legal mandate to preserve

records deemed important to the government and the public.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, CBO’s recent budget requests have been quite modest. Our

present proposal represents our best estimate of the amount needed to maintain our

budget at the current-services level. The requested increase of 4.5 percent is less

than that requested by the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional

Research Service, and the General Accounting Office. We believe that this level of

funding is necessary if we are to continue to serve the Congress in the manner it

has come to expect.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT ON WORK ACTIVITIES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE—

JANUARY 1999

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created the Congressional Budget Office

(CBO) to provide technical support on budget-related issues to all committees in the

Senate and the House, with primary responsibility to the Senate and House Committees on the Budget. The office’s mission is to provide the Congress with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs for making decisions about the economy and the budget and to furnish the information and estimates required for the

Congressional budget process. This document summarizes the office’s major activities during 1998 and its work plan for 1999.

CBO’S STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires CBO to prepare several specific

reports to the Committees on the Budget each year, including periodic assessments

of the economic and budget outlook, and to conduct continuing studies on budgetary

matters. The act also directs CBO to prepare estimates of the costs that the government would incur in carrying out the provisions of proposed legislation reported by

Congressional committees. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

CBO to prepare estimates of the direct costs of all federal mandates that are contained in legislation reported by any authorizing committee in either House that affect state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. CBO also prepares analytical studies on various economic and budgetary matters at the request of Congressional committees. A statement of CBO’s policies for preparing and distributing

its estimates and analyses appears in Appendix A.

CBO is the only part of the legislative branch whose mandate includes making

economic forecasts and projections. Its forecasts and projections involve the major

economic variables that affect the federal budget—gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation, and interest rates. The office does not attempt to forecast cyclical fluctuations in the economy more than two years ahead; instead, its longer-term

projections are based on trends in the labor force, productivity, and saving. CBO examines recent data on the state of the economy, looks at historical relationships between economic variables, analyzes the results from formal economic models, and

compares its economic projections with those of private forecasters. The office also

relies on the advice of a distinguished panel of advisers that meets twice a year.

The current members of that panel are shown in Appendix B.

Economic forecasts and projections are a major ingredient of CBO’s baseline revenue and spending projections. Those projections provide a benchmark for meas-
299

uring the effects of proposed changes in tax and spending laws and serve as the

starting point for developing Congressional budget resolutions. The projections are

based on the Congress’s most recent budgetary decisions and show what would happen if no new policy decisions were made over the 10-year projection period. Since

many factors besides the major economic variables affect the budget projections,

CBO closely monitors recent revenue and spending patterns and examines a wide

range of other available information on trends in individual programs. CBO’s economic and baseline budget projections are published early in the calendar year and

are updated in the summer.

MAJOR WORK PRODUCTS DURING 1998

Economic forecasts and baseline budget projections are an important part of

CBO’s work for the Congress, but only a part. During 1998, CBO completed more

than 2,000 separate work products, including hundreds of cost estimates for legislative proposals and various analytic studies, papers, and memorandums. CBO also

produced a substantial volume of letters and notes in response to Congressional inquiries and requests for information. In addition, CBO analysts consulted directly

with Members of Congress, committees, and staff on a variety of issues, large and

small, that are referred to the office daily.

A major work product last year was CBO’s response to the House Committee on

Appropriations’ report accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for

1999. That report directed CBO to provide certain information related to its work

efforts. In response to that directive, the office transmitted to the Congressional

leadership on July 23, 1998, a five-volume report providing a comprehensive overview of CBO’s activities. A brief summary of each of the five volumes follows. —Projecting Federal Tax Revenues and the Effect of Changes in Tax Law describes

CBO’s models for projecting federal tax revenues, compares projected and actual

revenues following recent changes in federal tax laws, and identifies the steps

CBO has taken to improve the accuracy of its revenue projections. —Comparison of Actual and Projected Deficits, Fiscal Years 1993–1997 explains

the reasons for differences between estimated budget deficits and actual outcomes during the five-year period. CBO has continued its efforts to improve the

accuracy of its budget estimates by searching for new sources of information,

but the vagaries of the economy and other factors affecting the budget make

complete accuracy elusive. CBO also continues to monitor collection of revenues

and program spending in order to provide the Congress with current information on budget outcomes. CBO’s Monthly Budget Review, which is based on

daily and monthly statements of the Department of the Treasury, has become

one of CBO’s most popular and frequently requested publications. —An Analysis of CBO’s Outlay Estimates for Appropriation Bills, Fiscal Years

1993–1997 provides an overview of the accuracy of CBO’s estimates in aggregate over the five-year period. CBO’s estimates of outlays for appropriation bills

were quite accurate overall despite significant deviations for individual spending programs. —Description of Economic Models explains the various models that CBO uses to

prepare its economic forecasts and analyses of the economic effects of legislative

proposals. CBO’s models reflect the ways in which government policies can affect the major decisions people make about saving and work. In those models,

higher marginal tax rates can reduce work effort, discourage saving, and slow

the growth of the economy; changes in entitlement programs for the elderly can

influence people’s decisions about retirement and saving for the future; and reducing the overall deficit or increasing the surplus can boost the U.S. capital

stock, lower interest rates, and raise gross domestic product.

—CBO’s Policies for Preparing and Distributing Its Estimates and Analyses, together with an index of available CBO publications.

Mandated and Other Reports

Each year CBO publishes a number of reports on the budget and the economy as

required by the Congressional Budget Act. Those annual reports followed a typical

schedule in 1998, starting with the release of volume one, The Economic and Budget

Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999–2008, at hearings before the Senate Committee on the

Budget on January 28 and the House Committee on the Budget on February 5. CBO

published an update of that report in August. In January, CBO also released its annual report on unauthorized appropriations and expiring authorizations.

Although not a mandated report, CBO’s analysis of the Administration’s budget,

An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1999, was prepared again at the request of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. That report

was issued in March 1998.
300

Following consultation with budget committee staff, CBO elected to forgo a 1998

update of Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options in light of the rapidly

improving budget picture. However, CBO released in May 1998 an update of its

Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options, which explores in some detail

the fiscal implications pending when the baby-boom generation begins to retire

about a decade from now. That publication is especially relevant to the current debate about Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.

Since 1986, CBO has been required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act to publish three sequestration reports. CBO issued the sequestration

preview report in January, the update report in August, and a final report in November.

In addition to the reports required by the Congressional Budget Act, CBO also

issued a review of the Department of Defense’s report on base realignment and closures, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.

Studies and Other Publications

CBO also analyzes specific program and policy issues that affect the federal budget and the economy. Most requests for analyses come from the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a full committee or subcommittee. The leadership of either

party in the House or the Senate may also request a CBO analysis. In keeping with

its nonpartisan mandate, CBO does not offer recommendations on policy.

Studies.—The analyses in CBO’s studies generally entail a substantial investment

of time and resources. CBO issued three such studies in 1998.

In January 1998, CBO published Innovative Financing of Highways: An Analysis

of Proposals. That study, requested by the Senate Committee on Environment and

Public Works, reviews several approaches to augment traditional sources of funding.

The analysis covers changes in rules governing federal aid, state infrastructure

banks, federal credit assistance, and private-sector financing goals.

In July 1998, CBO released How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs Has

Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget, that study examines the extent to which competition

from generic drugs has increased under the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act).

In December 1998, CBO published Regulatory Takings and Proposals for Change.

Requested by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, that study examines the economic and budgetary impact of legislative proposals to require federal agencies to analyze and compensate private property owners for the effects of regulatory action on private property.

Papers, Memorandums, and Other Documents.—CBO also prepares analyses in

shorter time frames either at Congressional request or in support of CBO’s statutory

work. Those analyses are usually issued as papers or memorandums. Of the 29 such

analyses CBO published in 1998, 20 were requested by House and Senate committees or leaders, and nine were undertaken in support of CBO’s statutory work.

For committees in the House, CBO presented an analysis of emergency spending

under the Budget Enforcement Act (Committee on the Budget); a description of

CBO’s economic models, an analysis of CBO’s outlay estimates for 1993–1997, and

estimates of the revenue effects of changes in tax laws (Subcommittee on Legislative

of the House Committee on Appropriations); an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the Economic Growth Act of 1998, an examination of international data on

antidumping activity, and an estimate of the amount of federal mandatory spending

and tax benefits available to low-income working families not receiving cash welfare

(Committee on Ways and Means); an examination of the factors that could affect

the relative success of the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule for limiting nitrogen oxides, and a primer on the subject of stranded costs associated with deregulation of the electric power industry (Committee on Commerce); and a study of the

Department of Defense’s Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program

(Committee on National Security).

For committees in the Senate, CBO assessed the potential economic effects of federal spending on infrastructure and other investments, examined federal efforts in

the area of global climate change, analyzed states’ use of surplus funds, and studied

two approaches considered during the 105th Congress for raising radio spectrum

fees (Committee on the Budget); examined the impact of fees charged for use of

automated teller machines (Committee on Banking); and studied housing choices

available to military personnel and options for enhancing the Department of Defense’s unmanned aerial vehicle programs (Committee on Armed Services).

In addition, CBO undertook a variety of papers, memorandums, and other research related to the continuing review of Social Security. Those products included

Social Security Privatization and the Annuities Market; Social Security and Private
301

Saving: A Review of the Empirical Evidence; and, in response to a request from the

House Ways and Means Committee, a letter analyzing Professor Martin Feldstein’s

proposal to set up private savings accounts financed by tax credits.

A list of the publications CBO issued in 1998 appears in Appendix C.

Cost Estimates

One of CBO’s most important responsibilities is to estimate the effect that proposed legislation would have on federal spending or revenues for the next five to

10 years. CBO staff members prepare all estimates of the impact of legislation on

federal spending. However, for estimating the impact of legislation on revenues, including income, estate and gift, excise, and payroll taxes, CBO is required by the

Congressional Budget Act to use exclusively the revenue estimates provided by the

Joint Committee on Taxation.

CBO is required to provide cost estimates for every bill reported by authorizing

committees in both the House and the Senate. The office also prepares cost estimates at a committee’s request for use in the early stages of drafting bills, for subcommittee and full committee markups, for floor amendments, and for conference

agreements. In addition, to the extent that resources permit, CBO provides cost estimates for legislative proposals at the request of individual Members. In all, CBO

prepared 678 federal cost estimates during calendar year 1998, along with many

more informal estimates for proposals or options being considered by the Congress.

Several pieces of major legislation accounted for much of CBO’s work on cost estimates in 1998. Enacted legislation included the Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, the

Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, the Higher Education Amendments,

the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, and the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. In addition, CBO provided numerous cost estimates for legislation that was not enacted, such as the proposed tobacco settlement and patients’ rights legislation.

CBO also provided the appropriations committees with estimates of outlays for all

appropriation bills. The numbers contained in appropriation bills usually represent

budget authority, and it is necessary to estimate the resulting outlays to determine

whether the bills conform to committee allocations under the Congressional Budget

Act as enforced by the budget committees. In addition, to assist the budget committees, CBO staff members frequently produce scorekeeping tabulations of Congressional actions on appropriations and other legislation affecting the federal budget.

Federal Mandates Cost Estimates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 established new procedures designed

to ensure that the Congress fully considers the potential effects of unfunded federal

mandates before imposing them on state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. CBO is required to provide statements to authorizing committees about

whether reported bills contain mandates and, if so, to estimate their costs. Those

new procedures went into effect at the beginning of 1996.

In 1998, CBO reviewed more than 500 reported bills and other legislative proposals for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates. Of the proposals analyzed, 64 contained intergovernmental mandates and 75 included private-sector

mandates. Six of the intergovernmental and 18 of the private-sector mandates had

costs exceeding the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Testimony

The CBO Director and other staff members testified before Congressional committees 14 times during 1998, addressing a diverse array of topics. Nine of those appearances were before House committees, and five were before Senate committees.

The Director also testified before the President’s Commission to Study Capital

Budgeting.

The Director of CBO testified before Congressional committees four times. In January, she appeared before the Senate Committee on the Budget to discuss the economic and budget outlook. In February, she testified before the House Committee

on Ways and Means on marriage and the federal income tax, and before the House

Committee on the Budget on the economic and budget outlook. In March, she testified before the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the House Committee on Rules on the Line Item Veto Act after one year.

The Deputy Director of CBO testified on three occasions. In February, he testified

before the Senate Committee on the Budget and in June before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs about the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In June,

he appeared before the Task Force on Budget Process of the House Committee on

the Budget to discuss budgeting for emergency spending.
302

Other CBO staff testified on seven occasions before House and Senate committees.

The issues they addressed were retail activities at military bases, CBO’s budget projections and baselines, budgeting for federal insurance programs, the domestic costs

of foreign sanctions, how states budget and plan for emergencies, automated teller

machines, and the Work Incentives Improvement Act (S. 1858).

A list of the Congressional testimony that CBO delivered in 1998 appears in Appendix D.

Public Information Activities

CBO continued to manage a diverse array of public information activities in response to requests for CBO analyses and data that are in the public sphere. The

office receives dozens of queries daily from Congressional staff, journalists, students,

researchers, and the general public. CBO provides its publications to an extensive

audience, mostly in the United States but also in foreign nations.

In addition, CBO staff meet with visiting delegations from other nations that wish

to learn more about the Congress and the budget process. Those visits are arranged

by a variety of groups that promote international communication and understanding. In 1998, CBO hosted more than 40 such delegations from Czechoslovakia,

Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Portugal, Russia,

South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, and other nations.

To better serve this diverse audience and convey a more accurate view of CBO’s

activities and the budget process, CBO had its general information publication, Responsibilities and Organization of the Congressional Budget Office, translated into

Spanish, Russian, and French.

www.cbo.gov

In 1998, CBO continued to develop its World Wide Web site (www.cbo.gov), where

all new CBO reports, studies, papers, memorandums, testimonies, federal bill cost

estimates, and other documents are available in several formats. CBO’s Monthly

Budget Review is updated each month and is posted on the Web site as soon as it

is available to the public. In October, CBO posted its 1,000th document. The Web

site also includes a list of the publications that CBO has issued since 1975.

Work on the Web site has been closely coordinated with the development of the

Legislative Information System to ensure that the site is technically compatible

with that system. CBO has recently improved the cost estimates section to incorporate requests for specific information from the staffs of the budget committees.

The office will continue to work with the Congress, and especially budget committee

staffs, to ensure that CBO’s Web site is as responsive as it can be to their informational needs.

Since it came on-line in September 1997, the CBO Web site has recorded almost

five million hits from a diverse audience of users including Congressional staff,

other government agencies, news agencies, researchers, and students. More than

850,000 pages have been reviewed or downloaded by site visitors from 98 countries.

Almost 10,000 requests for information are received each day.

CBO also made substantial progress in processing its official documents in accord

with the requirements of the National Archives and Records Administration. Those

documents range from official correspondence and personnel files to the full gamut

of CBO reports, studies, papers, memorandums, and other products. Within the past

year, CBO committed to permanent or temporary storage or destroyed approximately 20 percent of its file documents. CBO anticipates continued progress in 1999,

fulfilling the legal mandate to preserve records deemed important to the government

and the public.

WORK PLAN FOR 1999

The Congressional Budget Office expects to publish its series of annual reports

to the budget committees on a typical schedule in 1999. The annual report on the

economic and budget outlook, covering fiscal years 2000–2009, will be released in

late January. The Director will testify on that report before the Senate Committee

on the Budget. CBO’s annual report on unauthorized appropriations and expiring

authorizations was issued in early January.

In March, CBO will release its analysis of the President’s budgetary proposals for

fiscal year 2000. Also in March, CBO will publish Maintaining Budgetary Discipline:

Spending and Revenue Options, which identifies options that the Congress may find

useful for dealing with the procedural budgetary restraints—including the caps on

discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go procedures that apply to direct spending and revenues—that remain in effect until 2002.

CBO expects to publish about the same number of studies, papers, and memorandums in 1999. The issues addressed in those analyses include proposed Social Secu-
303

rity reforms, market-based student loans, national defense, infrastructure development, environmental issues, auctions relating to the shift to digital television, and

a possible change in Puerto Rico’s status.

CBO will not publish a 1999 edition of Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy

Options. The May 1998 publication addresses many vital questions related to Social

Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs and will continue to provide a

useful framework for the debate about long-term policy options for those programs.

However, an update of CBO’s longer-term budgetary projections will be included in

The Economic and Budget Outlook to be issued this month.

In 1999, CBO will continue to provide cost estimates for legislation, federal mandates cost estimates, and Congressional testimony as requested. The office will also

continue to process records for the National Archives and conduct public information

activities.

A complete list of CBO projects scheduled for 1999 appears in Appendix E.

BUDGET AND STAFF RESOURCES

The Congressional Budget Office’s 1999 appropriation is $25.7 million, an increase of 3.4 percent over its 1998 appropriation of $24.8 million. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation provides funding for 232 full-time-equivalent staff positions, the same

level as for fiscal year 1998. Most of CBO’s appropriation is for staff compensation

and related personnel costs. For fiscal year 1999, CBO budgeted $21.8 million for

personnel costs; $2.2 million for computer services and equipment, data acquisition,

and development of computer models; and $1.7 million for various administrative

expenses.

The share of CBO’s budget allocated for personnel costs continues to rise. Personnel expenses have grown to 85 percent of CBO’s budget, up from 70 percent in

1988, even though the size of CBO’s staff has not changed significantly over that

period. In contrast, the share of computer costs has fallen sharply, from 21 percent

of total expenses in 1988 to 8 percent in 1999.

For fiscal year 2000, CBO is requesting an appropriation of $26.8 million, an increase of $1.2 million (4.5 percent) over its 1999 budget. The request fully funds 232

full-time-equivalent positions, the same as this year; the higher compensation costs

require an increase of 6 percent in spending for personnel. The 6 percent increase

is partially offset by reductions in spending for automated data processing and computer systems in order to limit the requested increase to 4.5 percent.

APPENDIX A.—CBO’S POLICIES FOR PREPARING AND DISTRIBUTING ITS ESTIMATES

AND ANALYSES

The mission of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is to provide the Congress

with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis needed for economic and budget decisions and the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget

process. This document describes the policies and procedures that CBO follows as

it prepares and distributes budget estimates and other analytic work for the Congress.

CBO’s Statutory Responsibilities

The basic statute setting forth the duties and functions of the Congressional

Budget Office is title II of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additional responsibilities for budget estimates are contained in titles III and IV of that act. Subsequent legislation has affected those responsibilities and has added further requirements for specific analyses.

According to title II of the Budget Act, CBO’s primary duty is to provide budgetrelated information to all committees of both Houses, with priority given first to the

information needs of the Committees on the Budget and second to the information

needs of the Committees on Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Finance. With

respect to individual Members, the only CBO duty stipulated in the act is to provide

information compiled for committees and additional related information that may be

requested.

Title II also requires CBO to prepare several specific reports to the Committees

on the Budget each year, including periodic assessments of the economic and budget

outlook, and to conduct continuing studies on budgetary matters.

Titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act specify additional duties for

CBO to carry out in reviewing bills or joint resolutions reported from committees

of either House. Title III covers all bills or joint resolutions that provide new budget

or spending authority, such as appropriation bills, or that provide an increase or decrease in revenues. Title IV covers all bills and joint resolutions other than appro-
304

priation bills and private relief bills. Under those titles, CBO must prepare estimates of new budget authority, outlays, or revenues provided by the bills or joint

resolutions, or of the costs that the government would incur in carrying out the provisions of the proposed legislation. The CBO cost estimates are to be included in

the reports accompanying such bills or resolutions if they are submitted to the committees before the reports are filed.

For estimating the impact on revenues of legislation involving income, estate and

gift, excise, and payroll taxes, the Congressional Budget Act directs CBO to use exclusively the revenue estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987, and the Budget

Enforcement Act of 1990 assign further duties to the Congressional Budget Office,

such as providing budget estimates for the purpose of budget control. That function

includes preparing the various sequestration reports to the Congress and the Office

of Management and Budget. The Budget Enforcement Act also requires CBO to estimate changes in direct spending and revenues for private relief legislation as well

as for public bills or joint resolutions.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires CBO to prepare estimates

of the direct costs of all federal mandates that are contained in legislation reported

by any authorizing committee in either House and that affect state, local, and tribal

governments or the private sector. The act also authorizes CBO to prepare analyses

and studies of the budgetary or financial impact of proposed legislation that may

significantly affect state and local governments or the private sector, to the extent

practicable, at the request of any committee.

From time to time, statutes have directed CBO to prepare analytic reports on specific subjects. Such reports have included the treatment of administrative costs

under credit reform accounting, the financial risks posed by government-sponsored

enterprises, and the desirability and feasibility of privatizing the Federal National

Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

How Work on CBO’s Estimates and Analyses Is Initiated

The Congressional Budget Office strives to provide federal budget and mandate

cost estimates for all bills other than appropriation bills when they are reported by

a full committee of either House. Committee staff should notify CBO when bills are

about to be ordered reported and when cost estimates are needed.

CBO also prepares cost estimates for proposals at other stages of the legislative

process at the request of a committee of jurisdiction, a budget committee, or the

Congressional leadership. For example, CBO may prepare cost estimates for a series

of bills to be considered by a subcommittee, including draft bills not yet introduced,

or for amendments to be considered during committee markups. Similarly, it may

prepare cost estimates for floor amendments and for bills that pass one or both

Houses.

For appropriation bills, CBO provides estimates of outlays that would result from

the provision of budget authority. CBO also provides the budget and appropriation

committees with frequent tabulations of Congressional action on both spending and

revenue bills so that the Congress can know whether it is acting within the limits

set by the annual budget resolution.

In addition to statutory reports, or analyses done to directly support CBO’s statutory work, the office undertakes a number of other analyses each year, although

only at the request of the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the relevant

committee or subcommittee or the Congressional leadership. Also, as time permits,

CBO will honor requests of individual Members for cost information or other analysis of legislative proposals, but it must give priority to committee requests.

By way of definition, a committee request consists of a written or oral request by

the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a committee or subcommittee. CBO

asks that requests from individual Members be made in writing.

How CBO Consults with Committees and Other Requesters of Estimates and Analyses

When undertaking a cost estimate or an analysis supporting such an estimate,

CBO analysts contact the staff of the committee of jurisdiction and, when applicable,

the staffs of the Member sponsoring the proposal and the Member requesting the

estimate to gather background information and discuss the schedule for completing

the estimate. Budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation. CBO analysts consult with the staff of the committee of jurisdiction (for a reported bill) or the sponsoring Member (for an introduced bill or amendment) when questions of interpretation arise, but they draw their own conclusions

on an impartial and objective basis.
305

CBO analysts contact the appropriate staff members if a forthcoming CBO estimate shows direct spending costs, mandates that exceed the legislative thresholds,

or other significant findings. CBO, however, does not make judgments about the application of parliamentary points of order. After CBO cost estimates have been

transmitted, they may be revised to correct errors or to incorporate new or updated

information.

When undertaking requested analyses of legislative proposals or issues, CBO staff

members consult with the requester’s staff to reach an understanding of the scope

and nature of the work to be done. CBO analysts draw their own conclusions on

an impartial and objective basis, as they do when preparing cost estimates. When

appropriate, CBO staff inform other relevant committees of requests for analytic

work after advising the requester’s staff. As a final step in the consultation process,

CBO informs the requester’s staff of the results of the analysis before it releases

the material.

Sources of Information and Peer Review Practices

In preparing its budget estimates and analyses, CBO uses the rich data sources

available from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of

Income, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO

also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry

groups to meet specific needs.

CBO employs standard methods of economic analysis and closely follows theoretical and empirical developments in the professional literature for economics and

related disciplines. In addition, CBO frequently calls on outside experts for advice

on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agriculture production, spending

projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry. For its economic forecasts and assumptions, CBO draws on the advice of a distinguished panel of advisers that meets twice a year.

All CBO estimates and analytic products are reviewed internally for technical

competence, accuracy of data, and clarity of exposition. CBO studies are also reviewed by experts outside CBO, and the preface to each study cites the many contributors who helped shape the final product. Although outside experts and advisers

provide considerable assistance, CBO is solely responsible for the accuracy of the estimates and analyses that it produces. In keeping with its nonpartisan status and

its mandate to provide objective analysis, CBO does not make policy recommendations in any of its analyses.

CBO’s Responsibility for Disclosing and Explaining Its Critical Assumptions and

Methodologies

Both the Congressional Budget Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act direct CBO to disclose the basis for each budget and mandate cost estimate. CBO interprets that directive to include the disclosure of the critical assumptions and analytic methodologies used to prepare the estimate. All written cost estimates include

explanations of the basis of the estimate, and CBO supplies further details on request. Similar explanations of critical assumptions and methodologies are given in

CBO’s analytic products. It is CBO’s policy that its estimates and analyses be clearly presented and easy to understand.

How CBO Transmits Its Work to the Congress

CBO seeks to ensure that key parties in the Congress who are involved in any

particular issue have equal access to its analytic work. Insofar as possible, CBO delivers its cost estimates and analyses to all interested parties simultaneously. Requests for confidentiality are honored only for cost estimates for legislative proposals

that have not been made public.

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office transmits by letter all formal

budget and mandate cost estimates of legislative proposals and all requested analyses. CBO sends its formal cost estimates for reported bills and estimates prepared

at committee request to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the reporting or requesting committee. When the requester is a budget committee or individual Member, CBO sends a copy of its cost estimate simultaneously to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the committee of jurisdiction; for an introduced bill or amendment, a copy of the estimate is sent to the sponsor as well as

the requester. Cost estimates of legislative proposals that have not been introduced

as a bill or made public are transmitted only to the sponsoring Member or requesting committee unless CBO is directed otherwise.

In contrast, informal cost estimates may be transmitted directly by CBO staff. Informal estimates are preliminary because they do not undergo the same review procedures required for formal estimates.
306

How CBO Distributes Its Estimates and Analyses

CBO makes its analytic work widely available to Members of Congress and their

staffs as well as to the public. The Publications Office sends a copy of all CBO reports and studies to each Member. Copies of CBO papers, memorandums, and other

analyses are available to Members and Congressional staff on request.

The Publications Office also handles requests from the general public, other government agencies, and the press. Single copies of CBO reports, studies, papers, and

memorandums are available at no charge. In addition, the Superintendent of Documents at the U.S. Government Printing Office carries many CBO reports and studies.

In September 1997, CBO launched its World Wide Web site (www.cbo.gov). The

site now includes publications, testimony, and cost estimates issued since then as

well as many publications from previous years. As time and resources permit, CBO

will continue to post older products that remain relevant and useful. An index of

publications issued since CBO began operating in 1975, arranged chronologically

and by subject, will be posted on the Web site.

The documents on CBO’s Web site are available in four formats: HTML, PDF,

PostScript, and WordPerfect. The multiformat approach makes CBO’s products accessible to a wide variety of users and for multiple purposes. Visitors can browse,

search, download, and print documents that are on the Web. They can also subscribe to ListServer, a feature that enables them to be notified by E-mail when CBO

issues a publication on a subject of interest to them.

APPENDIX B.—PANEL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

Dr. Alan J. Auerbach, Robert D. Burch, Professor of Tax Policy and Public Finance, University of California.

Dr. Martin N. Baily, McKinsey & Company.

Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, Arthur Lehman, Professor, Columbia University.

Dr. Michael Boskin, Professor of Economics, Hoover Institute, Stanford University.

Dr. Barry P. Bosworth, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.

Dr. Robert Dederick, Economic Consultant, The Northern Trust Company.

Dr. Martin Feldstein, President, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dr. Robert J. Gordon, Professor of Economics, Northwestern University.

Dr. Robert E. Hall, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Dr. Marvin Kosters, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.

Dr. Anne Krueger, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.

Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

Dr. Allan Meltzer, University Professor, Graduate School for Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Dr. William D. Nordhaus, A. Whitney Griswold Professor, Yale University.

Dr. Rudolph Penner, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute.

Dr. James Poterba, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Robert Reischauer, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.

Dr. Sherwin Rosen, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago.

Dr. Joel Slemrod, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan.

Dr. John Taylor, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.

Dr. James Tobin, Yale University, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics.

APPENDIX C.—PROJECTS COMPLETED IN 1998

MANDATED AND OTHER REPORTS

The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999–2008 (January 1998)—Volume one in CBO’s series of legislatively mandated reports to the Congress on the

economy and the budget, which includes CBO’s current economic and budget projections.

Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations (January 1998)—An

annual report to the Congress listing, by committee of jurisdiction, all unauthorized

appropriations for the current fiscal year and authorizations scheduled to expire before the next fiscal year.

Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (January 1998)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.
307

An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1999 (March

1998)—Estimates the effects of the President’s budgetary proposals using CBO’s

economic and technical assumptions. Requested by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options (May 1998)—Shows the longterm economic and budgetary effects of coming demographic changes and discusses

policy options in defense, taxation, public investment, Medicare, and Social Security.

Review of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Clo- sure (July 1998)—An in-depth analysis of anticipated cost savings associated with

closing and consolidation of several military bases that the department deems no

longer essential to national defense.

Sequestration Update Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (August 1998)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (August 1998)—Updates volume

one of CBO’s annual report to the Congress on the economic and budget outlook.

Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (October 1998)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.

STUDIES

Innovative Financing of Highways: An Analysis of Proposals (January 1998)—Reviews new techniques used at the state and local levels to finance transportation

systems, considers their applicability at the federal level, and looks at the budgetary

treatment of such financing methods. Requested by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices and Returns

in the Pharmaceutical Industry (July 1998)—Examines the effects of federal regulations and rules on pricing in the pharmaceutical industry. Requested by the Senate

Committee on the Budget.

Regulatory Takings and Proposals for Change (December 1998)—Examines the

economic and budgetary impact of legislative proposals to require federal agencies

to analyze and compensate private property owners for the effects of regulatory action on private property. Requested by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

PAPERS

Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and

Health Care Providers (January 1998)—Estimates federal revenues and outlays and

outlines CBO’s estimating methodology for universal service federal mandates. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

An Assessment of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1997 (February 1998)—

Reviews the activities of CBO during 1997 in carrying out the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

Social Security Privatization and the Annuities Market (February 1998)—Looks at

possible economic effects of privatizing Social Security. Prepared in support of CBO’s

statutory work.

The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: Issues from a Federal Perspective (April 1998)—

Analyzes features of legislative proposals that would implement and potentially

modify the 1997 agreement between industry and states’ attorneys general. Requested by the Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate.

Antidumping Action in the United States and Around the World: An Analysis of

International Data (June 1998)—Analyzes use of antidumping actions by the United

States and foreign countries. Requested by the House Committee on Ways and

Means.

The Economic Effects of Federal Spending on Infrastructure and Other Investments (June 1998)—Reviews available data on the economic value of federal investments in infrastructure, education, training, and research and development. Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Factors Affecting the Relative Success of EPA’s Nox Cap-and-Trade Program (June

1998)—Analyzes the effects of limiting oxide emissions in 22 states and the District

of Columbia. Requested by the House Committee on Commerce.

Competition in ATM Markets: Are ATMs Money Machines? (July 1998)—Analyzes

the market for automated teller machines and related policy issues. Requested by

the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Options for Enhancing the Department of Defense’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Programs (September 1998)—Examines issues related to the Department of Defense’s
308

acquisition program for pilotless aircraft. Requested by the Senate Committee on

Armed Services.

Electric Utilities: Deregulation and Stranded Costs (October 1998)—Examines the

effects of removing barriers to interstate commerce in retail electricity markets. Requested by the House Committee on Commerce.

Housing Prices, Housing Choices, and Military Housing Allowances (October

1998)—Compares military expense-based and price-based housing allowance systems. Requested by the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Description of Economic Models (November 1998)—Provides a detailed description

of the various models used by CBO in preparing its economic forecasts and analyses.

Requested in the report accompanying the House Legislative Branch Appropriations

Bill.

Projecting Federal Tax Revenues and the Effect of Changes in Tax Law (December

1998)—Provides estimates of the revenue effects of several changes to the tax law

beginning in 1978, including separate estimates of the revenue effects of changes

in the tax rate on capital gains. Requested in the report accompanying the House

Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.

MEMORANDUMS

Proposals to Subsidize Health Insurance for the Unemployed (January 1998)—

Analyzes policies designed to assist purchase of health insurance for unemployed

people for a temporary period. Requested by the Senate Committee on Labor and

Human Resources.

Expanding Health Insurance Coverage for Children Under Title XXI of the Social

Security Act (February 1998)—Provides preliminary information about how the

states are responding to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Prepared

in support of CBO’s statutory work.

Changing the Treatment of Software Expenditures in the National Accounts (April

1998)—Examines the impact of changing the treatment of software from an intermediate good to an investment good. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

The Line Item Veto After One Year (April 1998)—Analyzes the Line Item Veto Act

during its first year of operation. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

Estimates of Federal Tax Liabilities for Individuals and Families by Income Category and Family Type for 1995 and 1999 (May 1998)—Continues CBO’s analysis

of the distribution of federal taxes. Requested by the Senate and House Committees

on the Budget, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the House Committee on

Ways and Means.

Social Security and Private Saving: A Review of the Empirical Evidence (July

1998)—Reviews the evidence from a number of studies on the impact of Social Security on saving. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

An Analysis of the Potential Macroeconomic Effects of the Economic Growth Act

of 1998 (August 1998)—Analyzes the macroeconomic effects of H.R. 4125, the Economic Growth Act of 1998. Requested by the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Climate Change and the Federal Budget (August 1998)—Examines the budgetary

and economic implications of efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels

between 2008 and 2010. Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Comparing Federal Employee Benefits with Those in the Private Sector (August

1998)—Compares benefits earned by federal employees with those earned by employees in the private sector. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

The Department of Defense’s Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (September 1998)—Analyzes the amount of resources the Department of Defense has devoted to ACTDs and examines the early evidence of benefits and risks. Requested

by the House Committee on National Security.

Policy Changes Affecting Mandatory Spending for Low-Income Families Not Receiving Cash Welfare (September 1998)—Discusses policy changes affecting federal

funding for low-income families. Requested by the House Committee on Ways and

Means.

Measurement of Employee Benefits in the National Accounts (September 1998)—

Examines the current methods of estimating employee benefits and possible sources

of inaccuracy. Prepared in support of CBO’s statutory work.

An Analysis of CBO’s Outlay Estimates for Appropriation Bills, Fiscal Years 1993–

1997 (October 1998)—Provides a comparison of CBO’s outlay estimates for discretionary appropriations with the actual outcomes. Requested in the report accompanying the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.

States’ Use of Surplus Funds (November 1998)—Provides a brief overview of the

economic and fiscal situation of the states and discusses implications for the federal

budget. Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget.
309

Two Approaches for Increasing Spectrum Fees (November 1998)—Analyzes options

for using fees to manage radio spectrum for licenses that are not sold at auction.

Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Emergency Spending Under the Budget Enforcement Act (December 1998)—Analyzes whether emergency spending is being used increasingly as a means of circumventing constraints of the budget process rather than as a response to unanticipated

needs. Requested by the House Committee on the Budget.

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Letter and attachment to the Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, Senate Democratic

Leader, Estimated Budgetary Impacts of Alternative Levels of Strategic Forces

(March 1998).

Letter and attachment to the Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Senate

Committee on the Budget, The Profitability of Federally Guaranteed Student Loans

(March 1998).

Changes in Federal Civilian Employment: An Update (April 1998), updates a 1996

memorandum on the same subject.

Letter and attachment to the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Minority

Member, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Using Auctions to Reduce the Cost of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (July 1998).

Letter to the Honorable Curt Weldon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, House Committee on National Security, regarding the estimated cost of three tactical aircraft programs to reflect changes resulting from the

1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (July 1998).

Letter and attachment to the Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman, House Committee

on Ways and Means, Analysis of a Proposal by Professor Martin Feldstein to Set Up

Personal Retirement Accounts Financed by Tax Credits (August 1998).

Estimated Budgetary Effects of Alternatives for Producing Tritium (August 1998).

Letter and attachment to the Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, Senate Democratic

Leader, Improving Russia’s Access to Early-Warning Information: Preliminary Results (September 1998).

APPENDIX D.

TESTIMONY IN 1998

January 28 ......... Senate Committee on the Budget, June O’Neill, Director.The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999–2008.

February 4 ......... House Committee on Ways and Means, June O’Neill,

Director.

Marriage and the federal income

tax.

February 5 ......... House Committee on the Budget, June O’Neill, Director.The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999–2008.

February 12 ....... Senate Committee on the Budget, James Blum,

Deputy Director.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act.

March 3 ............. Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare, and

Recreation, House Committee on National Security, Deborah Clay-Mendez, National Security Division.

Retail activities on military bases.

March 11 ........... Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process,

House Committee on Rules, June O’Neill, Director.

The Line Item Veto Act after one

year.

April 1 ................ Task Force on Budget Process, House Committee on

the Budget, Paul Van de Water, Assistant Director, Budget Analysis Division.

Budget projections and baselines.

April 23 .............. Task Force on Budget Process, House Committee on

the Budget, Marvin Phaup, Special Studies Division.

Budgeting for insurance programs.

June 3 ................ Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, James

Blum, Deputy Director.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act.

June 3 House Committee on International Relations, Jan

Acton, Assistant Director, Natural Resources and

Commerce Division.

The domestic costs of sanctions

on foreign commerce.

June 23 .............. Task Force on Budget Process, House Committee on

the Budget, James Blum, Deputy Director.

Budgeting for emergency spending.
310

TESTIMONY IN 1998—Continued

June 23 .............. Task Force on Budget Process, House Committee on

the Budget, Theresa Gullo, Budget Analysis Division.

How states plan and budget for

emergencies.

July 15 ............... Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs, Jan Acton, Assistant Director, Natural

Resources and Commerce Division.

Automated teller machines.

July 29 ............... Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy,

Senate Committee on Finance, Paul Van de

Water, Assistant Director, Budget Analysis Division.

The Work Incentives Improvement

Act—S. 1858.

APPENDIX E.—ONGOING PROJECTS IN 1999

MANDATED AND OTHER REPORTS

The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2000–2009 (January 1999)—Volume one in CBO’s series of legislatively mandated reports to the Congress on the

economy and the budget, which includes CBO’s current economic and budget projections.

Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations (January 1999)—An

annual report to the Congress listing, by committee of jurisdiction, all unauthorized

appropriations for the current fiscal year and authorizations scheduled to expire before the next fiscal year.

Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal Year 2000 (January 1999)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.

Maintaining Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options (March 1999)—

Volume two of CBO’s annual report to the Congress. Identifies some 250 specific options for reducing spending or increasing federal revenues that could be used for

complying with procedural budgetary restraints affecting annual discretionary appropriations and changes in permanent spending and revenue laws.

An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2000 (March

1999)—Estimates the effects of the President’s budgetary proposals using CBO’s

economic and technical assumptions. Requested by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Sequestration Update Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (August 1999)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (Summer 1999)—Updates volume

one of CBO’s annual report to the Congress on the economic and budget outlook.

Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2000 (October 1999)—Sets advisory

limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays, and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as any required sequestration.

CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS

Economic and Budgetary Effects of a Change in Puerto Rico’s Status—Looks at

the macroeconomic effects of Puerto Rican statehood and independence compared

with current law. Prepared by the Budget Analysis and Macroeconomic Analysis Divisions at the request of the House Committee on Resources.

Economic and Budgetary Issues Raised by the Advisory Council’s Proposals for Social Security Reform—Examines the macroeconomic, budgetary, and distributional

effects of the Advisory Council’s three proposals to reform Social Security. Prepared

by the Budget Analysis, Macroeconomic Analysis, and Health and Human Resources

Divisions at the request of the Senate Committee on Finance.

Raising the Earliest Age for Social Security Benefits—Analyzes the impact of options for raising the earliest age at which workers would be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. Prepared by the Health and Human Resources Division

(HHRD) at the request of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Student Loans—Analyzes market-based options for reforming the federally guaranteed student loan program to ensure a reliable flow of capital to students and to

target federal subsidies effectively. Prepared by HHRD and the Special Studies Division for the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Women and Social Security Reform—Examines changes in spouse and survivor

benefits under several Social Security reform plans and discusses the impact on
311

women of other specific provisions in those plans. Prepared by HHRD at the request

of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Projecting the Demand for Long-Term Care Services—Projects spending on longterm care services through 2040 and considers policies that could alter the demand

for those services. Prepared by HHRD at the request of the House Committee on

the Budget.

Federal Programs Affecting the Supply and Demand for Health Services—Identifies and compares federally funded programs that affect the supply of and demand

for health services among various groups in the population. Prepared by HHRD at

the request of the House Committee on the Budget.

Shifts in Financial Intermediation—Examines changes among financial intermediaries in their roles as agents between borrowers and lenders, providers of financial products, repositories for savings, sources of credit, and mediators of risk.

Prepared by the Macroeconomic Analysis Division (Macro) for the House Committee

on Banking and Financial Services. (The original request was made by the House

Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.)

The Economic Impact on the United States of Growth in the Developing World—

Looks at how the U.S. economy is affected by growth in developing countries, with

particular attention paid to trade and capital flows and wage rates in the United

States. Prepared by Macro at the request of the House Committee on International

Relations.

A Review of the Literature on the Effects of Reducing Greenhouse Gases—Reviews

the literature on the economic effects of reducing greenhouse gases. Prepared by

Macro at the request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Personal Bankruptcy—Looks at the impact of personal bankruptcy and bankruptcy laws on the efficiency of consumer credit markets. Prepared by Macro at the

request of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Evaluation of S. 2313 and S. 1792—Estimates the macroeconomic effects of two

proposals to reform the Social Security system. Prepared by Macro at the request

of several Members of Congress.

Evaluation of the Ball Plan—Estimates the macroeconomic effects of Ball’s plan

to reform the Social Security system. Prepared by Macro at the request of several

Members of Congress.

Foreign Experience with Government Spectrum Fees—Examines practices of selected foreign governments in charging governmental users of electromagnetic spectrum. Prepared by the Natural Resources and Commerce Division (NRCD) at the

request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

The Use of International Trade Sanctions—Analyzes the costs of sanctions to the

U.S. economy. Prepared by NRCD at the request of the House Committee on International Relations.

Economic Significance of the Current-Account Trade Deficit—Examines the causes

of the trade deficit, its effects on the economy, and what, if anything, might be done

to reduce or eliminate it that would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the

economy. Prepared by NRCD at the request of the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance.

Auctions for Digital TV—Updates assumptions underlying forecasts of receipts

from auctions made possible by the transition to digital TV; evaluates the technology, marketplace, and regulatory developments that could affect the amount and

timing of spectrum to be available for auction. Prepared by NRCD for the House

Committee on the Budget.

Financing Options for Airports—Reviews financing options for airports that are

part of the national plan of integrated airport systems but are not large or medium

hubs as defined by the FAA; reviews how those airports met financial requirements

and discusses the role that Airport Improvement Program grants play in helping

them cover operating expenses and meet capital needs. Prepared by NRCD at the

request of the House Committee on the Budget.

What Does the Military Pay Gap Mean?—Updates the December 1995 paper on

military pay and the rewards for performance. Prepared by the National Security

Division (NSD) at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Effects of Operations Other Than War on Military Readiness—Examines the impact on overall readiness of operations such as those in Somalia and Haiti and the

financial burden such operations place on operation and maintenance accounts. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

The Force Structure of the Navy in the 21st Century—Evaluates several force

structure options, emphasizing different roles for the Navy. Prepared by NSD at the

request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
312

The Defense Budget—Analyzes decisions resulting from the Quadrennial Defense

Review and their implications for future defense budgets. Prepared by NSD at the

request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Efforts to Control Nuclear Proliferation in Russia—Examines several cooperative

initiatives to control nuclear materials and technology and to enhance mutual security. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader.

Dealerting Nuclear Forces—Examines a wide variety of ways in which the United

States and Russia might reduce the alert rates of their nuclear forces. Prepared by

NSD at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader.

Transparency in Warhead Dismantlement—Examines options for the irreversible

dismantlement of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader.

Options for Providing Medical Insurance Benefits to Military Beneficiaries—Reviews and analyzes proposals for making military beneficiaries eligible for the medical insurance choices provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

The Drawdown of the Military Officers Corps—Describes the tools used by the

services between 1990 and 1996 to reduce the size of the officers corps and the effects of that drawdown on the distribution of officers by rank, year of service, and

occupation. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed

Services.

Analysis of the Effects of Retirement System Changes on Retention—Examines retention profiles of enlisted personnel to identify the impact of the most recent

change in the Military Retirement System. Prepared by NSD at the request of the

Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Enhancing National Security and Military Readiness—Examines the effects and

costs of additions to the defense program proposed by the Joint Chiefs and others.

Prepared by NSD at the request of the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Budgeting for Federal Retirement Costs—Analyzes current and alternative means

of budgeting for federal pensions with a view toward increasing control of costs and

security of benefits. Prepared by the Special Studies Division (SSD) at the request

of the House Committee on the Budget.

Volatility in Discretionary Appropriations—Analyzes how much discretionary

spending is volatile or unpredictable from year to year, which bears on the issue

of biennial budgeting. Prepared by SSD at the request of the Senate Committee on

the Budget.

Federal Taxes Under Income Tax and Comprehensive Reform Proposals—Compares federal taxes under current law and various comprehensive tax reform options

for different family income groups. Prepared by the Tax Analysis Division at the request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

OTHER PROJECTS

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: A Review of 1998—Reviews the activities of

CBO during 1998 in carrying out the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Prepared by the Budget Analysis Division and the Natural Resources and Commerce

Division.

Prepaying Medicare—Analyzes recent proposals to transform Medicare into a prepaid system, in which each age cohort contributes sufficient amounts during their

working lives to fully finance their Medicare benefits. Prepared by HHRD.

Delaying the Age of Medicare Eligibility and Offering an Early Buy-In—Examines

the fiscal and budgetary implications of providing health insurance to people who

retire before becoming eligible for Medicare. Prepared by HHRD.

A Reassessment of Medicare’s Graduate Medical Education Policies—Examines

Medicare policies related to graduate medical education, including changes made in

the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and considers options to modify those policies.

Prepared by HHRD.

Issues, Choices, and Macroeconomic Consequences of Privatizing Social Security—

Provides a broad overview of the issues involved in moving from the current defined

benefit, pay-as-you-go Social Security system to a defined contribution, funded system based on private accounts. Prepared by Macro.

Fiscal Consolidations and Short-Term Growth—Analyzes fiscal consolidations and

their implications for short-term growth in the overall economy. Prepared by Macro.

Social Security Privatization and Administrative Costs—Analyzes the administrative costs of creating private retirement accounts. Prepared by Macro.

Social Security Privatization: Experiences Abroad—Examines the experiences of

other countries in privatizing their public pension systems. Prepared by Macro.
313

Trends in Public Infrastructure—Looks at long-run returns to investment in public infrastructure; contains historical data on spending on capital maintenance by

federal and state governments in major categories. Prepared by NRCD.

Electric Utility Restructuring and Renewable Energy—Analyzes costs, efficiency

implications, and distributional effects of a federally mandated renewable portfolio

standard. Prepared by NRCD.

Costs of Complying with New Animal Waste Regulations—Analyzes the costs to

pork and poultry producers of new regulations intended to reduce the effects of animal agriculture on water quality. Prepared by NRCD.

Federal Options for Encouraging the Private Market for Natural Disaster Insurance—Analyzes failures of the private market to provide adequate disaster insurance and examines options for federal support for reinsurance markets. Prepared by

NRCD.

Introduction to Probabilistic Scoring—Examines options for preparing bill cost estimates when costs are subject to asymmetric uncertainties. Prepared by NRCD and

the Budget Analysis Division.

Measuring the Foreign Exposure of U.S. Banks—Examines the measures and data

used to track the foreign exposure of U.S. banks, undertaken in support of CBO’s

projections of the demands on the Bank Insurance Fund. Prepared by NRCD.

The Privatization of Sallie Mae—Develops a framework for analyzing the privatization of government-sponsored enterprises and applies it to the privatization of

Sallie Mae. Prepared by SSD.

HUD’s Affordable Housing Goals—Examines the effectiveness of HUD’s affordable

housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prepared by SSD.

Budget Process Issues for 1999—Examines the major budget process issues that

the Congress is likely to address in 1999, including emergency spending, biennial

budgeting, and pay-as-you-go. Prepared by SSD.

Comparing Federal and Private-Sector Compensation for Executives—Compares

the pay and benefits for executives in the federal government with those for executives in private firms. Prepared by SSD.

Federal Unfunded Liabilities—Provides present-value estimates of federal liabilities and commitments other than U.S. Treasury debt; discusses the meaning and

usefulness of such estimates. Prepared by SSD.

Budgetary Treatment of Coin and Currency—Explains how the public holding of

coin and currency affects the budget; discusses disparate treatment in the budget.

Prepared by SSD.

Budgetary Treatment of Personal Retirement Accounts—Analyzes the budgetary

treatment of Social Security reform proposals that would involve personal retirement accounts. Prepared by SSD.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Investor-Owned Public Utilities—Analyzes the

unique role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as private, for-profit lending

institutions backed by implicit government guarantees. Prepared by SSD.

Capital Budgeting—Provides an assessment of the report of the Capital Budgeting

Commission, which is scheduled to be released in late February. Prepared by SSD.

Budgeting for Federal Insurance—Analyzes alternative budgetary treatments to

reduce contingent losses associated with federal insurance programs. Prepared by

SSD.

Capital Gains Distributions from Mutual Funds—Analyzes capital gains distributions from mutual funds. Prepared by the Tax Analysis Division (TAD).

Using Environmentally Related Taxes to Reduce Income-Based Taxes—Looks at

the concept of using environmentally related taxes to reduce income-based taxes.

Prepared by TAD.

Analysis of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997—Analyzes the impact of the Taxpayer

Relief Act on the federal budget and economic growth. Prepared by TAD.

Tax Subsidies for Environmental Infrastructure—Looks at the possible use of tax

subsidies for environmental infrastructure. Prepared by TAD.

REPROGRAMMING FUNDS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you for your presentation.

We have been joined by the chairman of the full committee. Good

morning. This is the Congressional Budget Office, our final witness. Do you have any comment or statement? We would be happy

to hear it.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I am happy to be here with you. I do

have a request. We had quite a dialogue on the floor yesterday
314

with the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and we have a considerable disagreement over the manner in which reprogrammed emergency funds should be treated from the point of view of scoring,

and I would be very much appreciative if we could arrange to get

together sometime today or tomorrow and discuss the matter with

Phil.

I have taken the position that once we have emergency funds,

they are outside the budget. If we reprogram those funds, we do

not need to rescore them. You all have rescored them, to the great

disadvantage of this committee, and it has led to the adoption of

an amendment which will have the effect of cutting appropriated

funds from the omnibus bill by 20 percent to offset the emergency

funds that are in that bill, this bill we have just passed.

We have adopted it last night, but it will be passed when the

House finishes its version of the supplemental appropriations bill

today. I think we should find some way to reconcile these differences, because the Finance Committee’s position will mean that

we have no ability to reprogram emergency funds.

When we reprogram funds that are within the budget I know

they have a different scoring and outlay impact. But, I have taken

the position that funds that are outside the budget to start with

because they have got an emergency designation should not lead to

your scoring of those funds as outlays when we reprogram them for

a new emergency within the same year. I would appreciate it if we

could find some time to discuss that, and discuss its impact on the

overall emergency process.

We face a real question. We must finish this bill by tomorrow

night.

Mr. CRIPPEN. We are available at your request any time today,

tomorrow, tonight. Do you want to do it with Senator Gramm at

the same time?

Senator STEVENS. Yes. Senator Gramm and I agreed we would

meet with you jointly and see if we could explore this. Each one

of us will have staff there.

We also have a request in to you now for sort of a snapshot of

what we did yesterday, so we can see before we can get to this

meeting, how far apart we are, and what the impact is of the two

amendments that Senator Gramm presented.

It was my understanding that they were drafted by your people,

is that right?

Mr. CRIPPEN. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. This is the first I

have heard of the issue in any thorough way, and I am not aware

that they did. I do not know that they did not, either.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Cortese is here. He would be pleased to

brief your staff on what we are trying to do, but I would like to

do it today or tomorrow. I do not know what your hours are going

to be, but our hours are extremely long. We have 30, 35 hours to

be in session between now and noon on Friday.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CRIPPEN. We will do it.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. I have no additional

questions. Well, let me ask this one. In the last Congress the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act was amended to

make CBO’s primary duty its response to the Budget Committees
315

with its secondary duty to Appropriations, Ways and Means, and

Finance, and this is kind of piggy-backing on what Senator Stevens

had to say, but I know you are brand-new there, but do you have

any sense that this change has had any impact on CBO’s service

to the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. CRIPPEN. Certainly not that I am aware of. As you say, we

are both new, but I do not know where that language came from.

I could guess, but I will not. It certainly did not come from us, and

the original statute, as you know, specified the order of the committees; but the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee,

and the Finance Committee were the three listed for the Senate in

the statute.

We try very hard to do a decent job of responding quickly. The

only place where some slack is taken up from time to time is for

requests from individual Members for a cost estimate of legislation

that they plan to introduce. We price bills that are reported from

committee, but we also do a lot of advisory scoring of bills that are

introduced, many of which, as you know, have been reported from

the committee. So to the extent that we have slack or have moved

resources, it is in that area and not in what the committees need

us to do.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. We appreciate your

being here.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, the hearings

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Abrecht, Gary L., Chief, U.S. Capitol Police ......................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Anderson, Barry B., Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office ................... 293

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 293

Archer, Hon. Bill, U.S. Representative from Texas, prepared statement ........... 89

Becker, Herbert S., Director, Information Technology Services, Library of

Congress ................................................................................................................ 117

Benitez, Ben, Acting Director, Office of the Associate Librarian for Human

Resources Services, Library of Congress ............................................................ 117

Billington, Hon. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress ............ 117

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121

Buckley, Francis J., Jr., Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing

Office ..................................................................................................................... 189

Ciccolella, Charles, Chief of Operations, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and

Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate ...................................................................................... 271

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho, prepared statement ................. 217

Crippen, Dan L., Director, Congressional Budget Office ...................................... 293

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 293

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 295

Cylke, Frank Kurt, Director, National Library Service for the Blind and

Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress ................................................... 117

Dey, Christopher C., Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Sergeant at Arms

and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate .............................................................................. 271

DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office ...................... 189

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 190

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 18

Frederick, Doyle G., Chief of Staff, Office of the Sergeant at Arms and

Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate ...................................................................................... 271

Green, Gary, General Counsel, Office of Compliance ........................................... 105

Guy, William, Budget Director, Government Printing Office .............................. 189

Hantman, Hon. Alan M., AIA, Architect of the Capitol, member, Capitol

Police Board ........................................................................................................... 1, 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Hodges, Polly E., Budget and Finance Officer, Congressional Budget Office .... 293

Hughes-Brown, Beth, Administrative and Budget Officer, Office of Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 105

Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives,

member, Capitol Police Board ............................................................................. 1

Lopez, Kenneth E., Director of Security, Library of Congress ............................. 117

Mack, Hon. Connie, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee ................................ 103

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104

Mansker, Robert T., Deputy Public Printer, Government Printing Office ......... 189

Medina, Rubens, Law Librarian, Library of Congress ......................................... 117
Page

ii

Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service, Library of

Congress ................................................................................................................ 117

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 136

Orton, William, former Representative in Congress from Utah and member,

American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress ...................................................................................................................... 209

Paull, Lindy L., Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation ............................. 87

Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress .......................... 117

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130

Poole, Amita, Supervising Engineer, Capitol Building, Architect of the Capitol ......................................................................................................................... 21

Pregnall, Stuart, Budget Officer, Architect of the Capitol ................................... 21

Roth, Hon. Bill, Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation .......................... 87

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89

Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress ................ 117

Silberman, Ricky, Executive Director, Office of Compliance ............................... 105

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 107

Sisco, Gary, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate,

U.S. Senate ........................................................................................................... 217

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 223

Symms, Loretta, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant at Arms

and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate .............................................................................. 271

Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library of Congress ...................................................................................................................... 117

Talkin, Pam, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Office of Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 105

Theiss, Lynne, Executive Officer, Architect of the Capitol .................................. 21

Turnbull, Michael G., Assistant Architect of the Capitol ..................................... 21

Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting Office ...................................................................................................... 165

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 166

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 174

Washington, Linda, Director, Integrated Support Services, Library of Congress ...................................................................................................................... 117

Webster, John D., Director, Financial Services, Library of Congress ................. 117

Williams, Kathy A., Budget Officer, Library of Congress .................................... 117

Wineman, Timothy S., Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the Secretary

of the Senate, U.S. Senate ................................................................................... 217

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 265

Zagorin, Janet S., chair, American Bar Association Standing Committee on

the Law Library of Congress ............................................................................... 209

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 211

Ziglar, Hon. James W., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office of the

Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate, and Chairman, Capitol

Police Board ......................................................................................................... 1, 271

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 271

Prepared statements........................................................................................ 6, 284
(iii)

SUBJECT INDEX

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Page

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 79

Annual and multi-year projects .............................................................................. 81

AOC financial and budget status reports .............................................................. 80

Botanic Garden reconstruction ............................................................................... 22

Capital:

Budget ............................................................................................................... 71

Project implementation .................................................................................... 72

Capitol dome renovation ......................................................................................... 62

Cost .................................................................................................................... 63

Dirksen Senate Office Building renovation ........................................................... 64

Financial management system............................................................................... 69, 82

Financial statements ............................................................................................... 82

Fire safety ................................................................................................................ 79

Five year capital budget, fiscal year 2000 ............................................................. 32

Fort Meade project ................................................................................................... 80

General introduction and executive summary ...................................................... 23

House and Senate office buildings, reengineering in the ..................................... 80

Human factor ........................................................................................................... 38

K–9 facility renovation ............................................................................................ 80

Life safety ................................................................................................................. 67

Office of the Architect of the Capitol, role of the .................................................. 28

Operating budget ..................................................................................................... 70

Fiscal year 2000 ................................................................................................ 29

Operations improvement ......................................................................................... 66

Parking:

Garages .............................................................................................................. 79

Maryland Avenue, removal of on .................................................................... 61

Perimeter security ................................................................................................... 68

Physical security master plan ................................................................................. 68

Re-engineering plan ................................................................................................. 67

Russell courtyard boxwoods .................................................................................... 81

Senate employees child care center ........................................................................ 74

Priority .............................................................................................................. 76

Senate restaurants.................................................................................................. 73, 81

Strategic business planning effort: goals and processes for sensible agency

re-engineering ....................................................................................................... 37

Visitor:

Entrances .......................................................................................................... 78

Center ................................................................................................................ 65

Security ...................................................................................................... 77

Site plan ..................................................................................................... 76

Y2K:

Computer compliance ....................................................................................... 69

Program ............................................................................................................. 81

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Appropriation tracking system update .................................................................. 297

Budget, request, areas of concern relating to CBO’s ............................................ 296

Director’s Report on Work Activities of the Congressional Budget Office—

January 1999 ........................................................................................................ 298

Managing CBO information .................................................................................... 297
Page

iv

Personnel issues: Recruiting and retention ........................................................... 295

Request, fiscal year 2000 .................................................................................... 294, 296

Y2K status report................................................................................................ 295, 297

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 186

Budget request, fiscal year 2000 ............................................................................ 183

GAO:

Benefits of work ................................................................................................ 172

Committed to accountability, integrity, reliability ........................................ 174

Goals for ............................................................................................................ 174

Highlights of activities ..................................................................................... 166

Opportunities to enhance services to the Congress ....................................... 177

Today: Service to the Congress and American people ................................... 175

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................... 186

Self-initiated work ................................................................................................... 168

Travel request .......................................................................................................... 185

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 204

Congressional printing and binding appropriation ............................................... 192

Delinquent payments .............................................................................................. 203

Employment levels ................................................................................................... 200

Fiscal year 2000 appropriations request ................................................................ 191

GPO’s mission: Keeping America informed ........................................................... 190

Integrated processing system ................................................................................. 203

Legislative changes, miscellaneous ........................................................................ 195

Management audit recommendations, status report on ....................................... 195

Public Printer’s statement ...................................................................................... 189

Retirement incentive authority .............................................................................. 195

Revolving fund ......................................................................................................... 194

Salaries and expenses appropriation ..................................................................... 193

Y2K:

Compliance costs .............................................................................................. 197

Compliant systems ........................................................................................... 196

Status of preparedness ..................................................................................... 195

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

Appropriation request:

Details of fiscal year 2000 ................................................................................ 90

Summary of fiscal year 2000 ........................................................................... 89

Federal tax system, report on the state of the ...................................................... 88

Joint Committee on Taxation:

Anticipated workload of the, for calendar year 1999 ..................................... 92

Review of operations during calendar year 1998 ........................................... 91

Tax Code, simplification of the ............................................................................... 101

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

Joint Economic Committee budget request ........................................................... 103

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Audio-visual Conservation Center .......................................................................... 127

Automation building blocks .................................................................................... 123

Budget request..................................................................................................... 118, 121

Career enhancement succession plan .................................................................... 159

Copyright fees increase ........................................................................................... 161

Copyright Office ....................................................................................................... 126

CRS:

Budget request .................................................................................................. 136

Concerns of putting products online ............................................................... 162

Distribution of written products to the public ............................................... 140

Home page ......................................................................................................... 135

Public dissemination of products ..................................................................... 135

Recruitment program ....................................................................................... 156
Page

v

CRS—Continued

Request for funding .......................................................................................... 134

Security issues .................................................................................................. 135

Succession plan ................................................................................................. 134

Y2K compliant .................................................................................................. 135

Early history ............................................................................................................ 122

ILS project ................................................................................................................ 158

Information and research capability, developing and maintaining an ............... 138

James Madison Building workstation modernization project .............................. 127

Law Library ............................................................................................................. 126

Legislation, proposed ............................................................................................... 127

Library buildings and grounds ............................................................................... 127

Library of Congress today ....................................................................................... 123

Library staff, collections and facilities, security of ............................................... 125

Library’s bicentennial ......................................................................................... 120, 128

Library’s challenges ................................................................................................. 120

Library’s mission ..................................................................................................... 119

National Film Preservation Foundation ................................................................ 127

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped ................. 126

Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................... 128

Personnel system ..................................................................................................... 160

Reprogramming fiscal 1999 funding to evaluate ........................................... 155

Retirements, impact of the potential ..................................................................... 158

Services, maintaining current ................................................................................ 136

Special congressional directives: Legislative information system (LIS) .............. 139

Succession planning ................................................................................................. 156

Succession program ................................................................................................. 125

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

Additional record keeping ....................................................................................... 115

Associates, introduction of ...................................................................................... 105

Authority, potential additional ............................................................................... 113

Enforcement authority for retaliation .................................................................... 114

Workload and OSHA experience ............................................................................ 112

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 18

Associates, introduction of ...................................................................................... 4

Booz-Allen and Hamilton report ............................................................................. 16

Budget request ......................................................................................................... 3

Management review ................................................................................................ 13

Payroll increases ...................................................................................................... 14

Police forces, compatibility with other ................................................................... 11

Security upgrade project ......................................................................................... 15

Summary statement ................................................................................................ 4

Y2K ........................................................................................................................... 6

Program ............................................................................................................. 12

U.S. SENATE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Accounting Department .......................................................................................... 245

Accounts payable audit section ............................................................................... 246

Additional committee question ............................................................................... 268

Administrative offices .............................................................................................. 239

Bill Clerk .................................................................................................................. 229

Budget Department ................................................................................................. 247

Budget request, fiscal year 2000........................................................................ 219, 223

Capitol visitor center........................................................................................... 222, 266

Vision for the .................................................................................................... 227

Central Human Resources Department ................................................................. 239

Daily Digest .............................................................................................................. 229

Departmental annual reports ................................................................................. 229

Disbursing Office ..................................................................................................... 239

Financial management ..................................................................................... 242

Employee benefits section ....................................................................................... 241
Page

vi

Enrolling Clerk ........................................................................................................ 230

Executive Clerk ........................................................................................................ 230

Financial Systems Department .............................................................................. 248

FMIS ......................................................................................................................... 219

And LIS, implementing the mandated systems of ......................................... 223

Processing of vouchers ..................................................................................... 266

Front counter—Administrative and financial services ......................................... 239

Historical Office ....................................................................................................... 256

Impeachment trial ................................................................................................... 228

Information systems ................................................................................................ 260

Interparliamentary services .................................................................................... 255

Official foreign visitors—1998 ......................................................................... 265

Trips 1998 ......................................................................................................... 264

Journal Clerk ........................................................................................................... 231

Legislative Clerk ...................................................................................................... 231

Legislative departments .......................................................................................... 229

LIS ............................................................................................................................ 220

Office of Captioning Services .................................................................................. 236

Office of Conservation and Preservation ............................................................... 253

Office of Human Resources ..................................................................................... 248

Office of Official Reporters of Debates ................................................................... 232

Office of Public Records ........................................................................................... 256

Office of Senate Curator .......................................................................................... 258

Office of Senate Security ......................................................................................... 253

Office of the Secretary budget ................................................................................ 268

Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment ............................................ 250

Other systems .......................................................................................................... 221

Parliamentarian ....................................................................................................... 233

Payroll section .......................................................................................................... 240

Personnel challenges for the future ....................................................................... 226

Policy and Control Department .............................................................................. 248

Printing and document services ............................................................................. 233

Senate:

Gift Shop ........................................................................................................... 255

Library ............................................................................................................... 249

Page school ........................................................................................................ 259

Stationery room ................................................................................................ 254

Special projects—LIS ............................................................................................... 237

Y2K compliance ....................................................................................................... 219

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

Barbershop ............................................................................................................... 292

Budget request, fiscal year 2000 ............................................................................ 285

Summary statement ................................................................................................ 272

Y2K:

Issues ................................................................................................................. 291

Update ............................................................................................................... 288

Æ